Jftf 
K 


SB 


fllfl 


THE  MINNESOTA 
LEGISLATURE 


OF  1915 

BY 

C.  J.  BUELL 


TO  THE   READER. 

This  book  is  not  published  for  profit,  but  to  in- 
form the  voters  as  to  the  record  of  their  Senators 
and  Representatives.  Please  pass  it  on  to  your 
neighbor  after  you  have  read  it,  and  write  to  the 
author  your  honest  opinion  of  the  work. 

C,  J,   BUELL, 
1528  Laurel  Ave.,  St.  Paul. 


The  Minnesota 
Legislature 

Of 


(By  C'  J' 


Every  citizen  ought  to  read 
this  book.  It  tells  you  the 
truth  about  your  legislat- 
ure. It  shows  just  how 
your  member  voted  on  the 
important  questions.  It 
opens  up  the  true  inward- 
ness of  the  Speakership 
Contest  and  the  County 
Option  fight. 

A  Brief  But  Clear  Discussion  of  the  Questions  of 
"Taxation" 

"Public  Service  Corporations" 
"Equal  Suffrage" 

"Efficiency  and  Economy" 

"The  Mayo  Affiliation" 

and  Many  Others 

PRICE  OF  THE  BOOK  IN  QUANTITIES: 
In  cloth   -    $1.00    In  paper,  5  copies  $1.50    100  copies   $15 
2  copies   -      1.50    10  copies        -  2.50    200  copies   $25 

1  copy,  paper  .50    25  copies        -  5.00  1000  copies  $100 

Address:    C.  J.   BUELL 

1528  Laurel  Avenue  ST.  PAUL,  MINN. 


The  Minnesota  Legislature 

of  1915 


--BY- 


C.  J.J5UELL 

Author  of 
"The  Minnesota  Legislature  of  1913" 

"The  Currency  Question" 
'Industrial  Depressions,  their  Cause  and  Cure' 

"Monopolies  and  Trusts" 
"Our  Indebtedness  to  the  Arabs" 


Copyright  by  C.  J.  BUELL 

1528  Laurel  Avenue 

St.  Paul,  Minn. 

1915 


LIEUTENANT  GOVERNOR   BURNQUIST, 
Who   has..twi,pe   orj^anizdjitfaf  Senate  for   honesty,  efficiency 
"*"•.••    antl  'economy,  irt*  government. 


COMMENDATORY   FORE  WORD. 

The  manuscript  for  this  book  has  been  prepared  by 
C.  J.  Buell,  who  gave  his  entire  time,  during  the  legislative 
session  of  1915,  to  a  careful  study  of  the  record  of  each 
member  of  both  House  and  Senate  and  a  thoro  analysis  of 
all  important  measures. 

Mr.  Buell  has  wisely  left  the  record  of  each  member 
to  speak  for  itself. 

We  know  Mr.  Buell  to  be  honest,  independent  and  fear- 
less, and  believe  he  has  produced  a  History  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  1915  that  every  citizen  can  read  with  profit. 

(Signed)     Hugh  T.  Halbert, 
Louis   Nash, 
T.   T.   Hudson, 
Elwood  S.  Corser. 


PREFACE    BY   THE   AUTHOR. 

This  is  the  fourth  time  that  a  history  of  the  Minnesota 
Legislature  has  been  given  to  the  public. 

These  books  have  attempted  to  analyze,  in  a  clear,  simple 
and  fearless  manner,  the  more  important  legislative  work 
of  each  session;  and  to  show  to  the  voters  just  how  their 
representatives  had  voted  in  committee  and  on  the  floor  of 
the  House  and  Senate  on  these  important  matters. 

This  publicity  has  had  its  effect.  Many  extreme  con- 
servatives, reactionaries,  and  special  interest  men  have  been 
retired  to  private  life,  and  more  progressive  and  honest  men 
sent  in  their  places. 

There  has  been  a  great  improvement  in  the  direction  of 
intelligence,  honesty  and  independence.  Steadily  the  people 
have  been  able  to  get  more  and  the  corporations  and  special 
interests  less. 

I  believe  the  legislature  of  1915  has  to  its  credit  as  much 
thoroly  correct  legislation  and  as  few  dangerous  enactments 
as  any  in  the  history  of  the  state. 

Some  of  my  readers  may  think  this  a  rash  statement; 
but,  when  you  have  gone  thru  the  different  chapters  care- 
fully, perhaps  the  good  features  will  look  better  and  the 
sins  not  so  heinous. 

Much  credit  is  due  to  those  public  spirited  citizens  whose 
financial  aid  has  made  these  books  possible.  As  they  have 
always  been  sold  at  about  the  cost  of  printing  and  postage, 
they  have  never  brought  any  profit  to  the  authors. 

Write  me  your  candid  opinion  of  this  book. 

J.  C.  BUELL, 
1528  Laurel  Ave.,   St.   Paul,   Minn. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Commendatory  Foreword 3 

Author's  Preface    3 

CHAPTER   I. 

County  Option  and  the  Speakership 5 

CHAPTER  II. 

The  Committees  and  the  Flowers  Organization 10 

CHAPTER  III. 

Tying  Up  Members 13 

The  Patronage  Bait 14 

President  pro  tern,  of  the  Senate 15 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Self  Government    16 

The  Source  of  Government 17 

The  Scope  of  Government IS 

The  Bill  of  Rights is 

Representative  Government ' ]  s 

Democracy   (Initiative,   Referendum  and  Recall) 1s 

Equal  Suffrage    22 

Amending  the  Constitution 25 

CHAPTER  V. 

Taxation 27 

Theories  of  Taxation 27 

Tax  Situation  in  Minnesota 29 

Gross  Earnings  Taxes 31 

Natural  Sources  of  Revenue 32 

Unemployment,   Wage   Regulation   and   Taxation 33 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Public  Service  Corporations   34 

The  Telephone  Bill ...  35 

The  Nolan  Bill 37 

Semi-Monthly  Pay  Day  Bill 38 

Street  Railway  Bills ' 40 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Good  Roads   45 

Repeal  of  Elwell  Road  Law 46 

Dunn  Road  Law   49 

CHAPTER,VIII. 

Temperance  and  Moral  Measures 49 

County  Option   49 

Prohibition    1 55 

The  Anti-Road  House   Bill 57 

The  Boxing  Bill  and  Mayo  Affiliation 60 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Efficiency  and  Economy 63 

The  "Big  Bill" 63 

The  "Seven  Sisters"    65 

CHAPTER  X.- 

Proposed  Laws  that  Failed 67 

Spoiling  the  Merit  System 68 

Medical  Legislation    72 

Educational  Measures    75 

The  Grain  Bills   76 

CHAPTER  XI. 

A  Non-Partisan  Legislature    78 

Some  Laws  that  Passed 80 

What  the  Legislature  Silent 80 

CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Record  the  Members  Made 81 

The  Senators 81 

The   Representatives 92 

Larimore's   Record    .                                    112 


The  Minnesota  LegisJaturc  of    , 
1915 

CHAPTER  I. 

COUNTY  OPTION  AND  THE  SPEAKERSHIP. 

Why  was  the  question  of  county  option  the  supreme  issue 
in  the  selection  of  a  speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives? 
Are  there  not  other  state  questions  of  equal  or  greater 
importance? 

Perhaps,  but  the  one  overwhelming  issue  in  the  campaign 
of  1914  was  the  question  whether  the  people  of  the  several 
counties  of  the  state  should  be  permitted  to  vote  and 
determine  the  policy  of  the  county  as  to  the  licensing  of  the 
liquor  traffic.  In  almost  every  legislative  district  of  the  state 
county  option  was  either  the  one  vital  issue  or  else  it  was 
one  of  the  few  questions  around  which  the  contest  was 
waged  for  Senator  and  House  members. 

What  Does  County  Option    Mean? 

A  few  facts  will  make  the  answer  plain.  Under  the 
present  system  of  so  called  Local  Option,  the  people  who 
live  within  the  boundaries  of  any  little  village  or  city  have 
the  entire  power  to  license  saloons  within  that  territory. 
The  farmers  who  occupy  the  surrounding  country  are  wholly 
shut  out  from  any  voice  in  the  matter;  yet  they  must  come 
there  to  trade;  their  older  children  must  go  there  to  school; 
and  there  is  the  social  center  where  they  must  seek  enter- 
tainment and  religious  and  moral  instruction. 

Are  not  the  surrounding  farmers  just  as  much  interested 
in  the  social  and  moral  conditions  of  the  town  as  are  those 
who  happen  to  live  within  its  boundaries?  Yet  under  the 
present  system  of  "local  option"  they  can  have  no  voice 
nor  vote  upon  the  most  vital  question  that  goes  to  determine 
the  moral  status  of  their  town. 

Is  this  fair  to  these  farmers  to  whom  the  town  owes  to  a 
large  extent  at  least,  its  very  existence? 

And  more  than  this;  the  licensed  saloon  is  the  one 
greatest  direct  cause  of  crime  and  poverty. 

The  whole  county  must  pay  the  cost  of  prosecuting  the 
criminals  and  supporting  the  paupers  that  result  from  the 
legalized  saloon. 

Why  then,  should  not  all  the  people  of  the  county  be 
allowed  to  vote  on  the  question  of  licensing  saloons  within 
its  borders? 

Blind  Pigs  and  Boot  Leggers. 

"But,"  you  say,  "If  saloons  are  not  licensed,  'blind  pigs' 
and  'boot  leggers'  will  spring  up  and  flourish." 

The  answer \is:  "Such  places  are  outlaws.  The  halo 
and  sanctity  of  law  do  not  surround  them.  They  can  be 
closed  and  destroyed  at  any  time,  whenever  any  person  or 
group  of  persons  see  fit  to  take  action." 

If  the  people  of  the  counties  had  a  right  to  vote  on  this 


GEO.   B.  SAFFORD, 

Superintendent    of    the    Minnesota    Anti-Saloon    League,    the 
Organization   that  won   in  the   Legislature  of   1915. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


question,  it  is  reasonably  certain  that  more  than  three  fourths 
of  the  state  would  refuse  to  license  and  legalize  this  useless 
and  accursed  traffic. 

The  people  of  the  other  counties,  who  might  wish  to 
continue  the  license  system,  would  in  no  way  be  prevented 
from  doing  so. 

This  issue  has  long  been  a  burning  one,  and  the  election 
of  1914,  the  people  chose  a  good  working  majority  of  both 
House  and  Senate  either  pledged  to  pass  a  county  option  law, 
or  known  to  favor  such  an  act;  and  thus  give  to  the  citizens 
of  each  county  the  right  to  vote  upon  and  determine  the 
question  whether  or  not  the  open  saloon  should  be  licensed 
and  legalized. 

THE   SPEAKERSHIP    LINE-UP. 

Before  the  votes  were  all  counted,  the  brewery  interests 
had  selected  H.  H.  Flowers  of  LeSeuer  county  as  their  candi- 
date for  speaker  and  were  very  busy  lining  up  for  him  all 
members  not  pledged  to  county  option. 

From  the  start  they  made  the  extravagant  claim  of 
seventy-three  votes,  (seven  more  than  enough  to  elect)  and 
tried  to  produce  a  stampede  for  the  band  wagon. 

Ed.  Claggett,  distributing  agent  of  the  Hamm  Brewing  Co. 
whose  headquarters  are  at  Austin,  Minn.,  was  called  in  and 
took  a  fine  suite  of  rooms  at  the  Ryan  Hotel.  Here  he 
remained,  during  the  entire  contest,  working  his  best  for 
Flowers,  helping  to  influence  members  and  secure  votes. 

Agents  of  the  N.  W.  Telephone  Co.  were  also  in  evidence, 
as  were  also  close  friends  of  the  Republican  boss,  Ed.  -Smith. 

Referring  to  the  speakership  one  prominent  -St.  Paul 
wholesale  liquor  dealer  said  to  the  writer,  "We  propose  to 
protect  our  interests.  It  will  cost  money,  but  we  shall  pro- 
tect our  interests." 

The  hasty  activity  of  the  liquor  interests  in  behalf  of 
Mr.  Flowers  forced  the  county  option  men  to  get  together; 
and  after  some  consultation  it  was  apparent  that  most  of 
them  favored  S.  Y.  Gordon  of  Brown's  Valley  for  speaker. 

Mr.  Gordon  had  been  Lieutenant  Governor  in  1911,  and 
had  so  organized  the  senate  committees  that  the  brewers  and 
other  special  interests  were  not  well  pleased  with  him. 

Forty-two  members  pledged  themselves  to  Mr.  Gordon  on 
the  evening  of  Nov.  17  at  a  conference  held  at  the  Merchants 
Hotel.  Others  sent  in  their  pledges  until  the  number  reached 
sixty-two  who  had  authorized  their  names  to  be  published. 
Three  others  had  pledged  themselves  verbally,  but  did  not 
want  their  names  given  out.  One  more  would  be  enough 
to  elect  Gordon. 

C.  L.  Sawyer,  a  strong  temperance  man  and  supporter 
of  county  option,  had  not  yet  given  either  a  written  or  verbal 
pledge  but  had  assured  several  friends,  among  them  the 
present  writer,  that  he  should  support  Gordon  finally,  if  he 
had  to  do  so  to  defeat  Flowers.  He  later  on  sent  a  written 
pledge  to  the  Anti-Saloon  League  to  be  the  sixty-sixth  man  to 
vote  for  Gordon. 

A  desperate  attempt  was  made  by  the  liquor  interests 
to  take  men  away  from  Gordon,  and  they  openly  avowed  their 
determination  to  "protect  our  interests  at  any  cost." 


8 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

At  one  time  by  misrepresentation,  they  secured  a  pledge 
from  Spencer  J.  Searls  of  Carleton,  an  original  Gordon  man, 
to  support  Flowers;  but  when  Searls  fully  understood 
the  situation  he  returned  to  Gordon,  and  stayed. 

Later  Hugh  O.  Thompson  of  Blue  Earth  county  was 
deceived  into  declaring  for  Flowers,  but  he  soon  discovered 
the  deceit  and  returned  to  Gordon. 

A.  M.  Peterson  of  Itasca  county  and  Oscar  C.  Stenvick 
of  Clearwater  were  taken  up  into  the  high  mountain  and 
offered  all  in  sight  if  they  would  desert  Gordon  and  support 
Flowers. 

Great  pressure  was  brought  to  bear  on  C.  E.  Vasaly  of 
the  board  of  control,  to  secure  the  vote  of  his  brother  for 
Flowers,  but  Mr.  Vasaly  flatly  refused  to  do  anything  to  change 
his  brother's  vote. 

Madigan  of  Wright,  Tollefson  of  Dodge,  Wold  of  Douglas, 
Marwin  of  Hennepin  and  several  others  were  put  under  pres- 
sure. In  fact  every  member  about  whose  position  there  was 
the  least  doubt  was  offered  good  committee  apppointments 
in  exchange  for  his  support,  and  one  member  at  least  is 
ready  to  testify  that  he  was  offered  money  directly  to  desert 
Gordon  and  support  Flowers. 

When  the  House  met  Jan.  5  to  elect  a  speaker  the  plot 
soon  began  to  unravel. 

After  a  number  of  members  had  seconded  the  nomination 
of  Flowers  and  the  psychological  moment  had  arrived,  J.  H. 
Erickson  of  Big  Stone  county  arose  and  in  a  carefully  pre- 
pared speech  seconded  the  nomination  of  Flowers. 

Now  Mr.  Erickson  had  been  one  of  the  original  Gordon 
men,  and  had  pledged  to  Gordon  on  the  evening  of  Nov.  17. 
Mr.  Erickson  was  evidently  much  disturbed  in  mind,  for 
his  face  was  flushed,  he  trembled  in  every  part  of  his  body, 
he  neither  looked  up  nor  to  right  or  left,  but  sat  in  his  seat 
during  the  rest  of  the  day's  session  like  one  in  a  dn?am. 
I  sat  where  I  could  watch  him  closely,  and  could  read  his 
thoughts  and  emotions  like  an  open  book. 

He  was  made  chairman  of  the  committee  on  banks  and 
banking. 

The  next  act  in  this  drama  was  during  the  first  ballot, 
when  C.  L.  Sawyer  played  the  part  assigned  to  him,  and  read 
a  lengthy  statement  explaining  his  vote  for  Flowers.  Sawyer 
has  always  been  a  strong  temperance  man  and  had  pledged 
himself  to  support  Gordon.  I  heard  him  say  that  he  could 
never  vote  for  Flowers  and  the  brewery  crowd. 

The  third  man  needed  to  elect  Flowers  was  Thompson  of 
Mahnomen  county  who  on  the  second  ballot  deserted  Gordon 
and  gave  Mr.  Flowers  the  sixty-five  votes  necessary  to  elect. 

Each  of  these  three  men  was  needed  and  each  played 
his  part  effectively. 

The  socialist  members  had  been  instructed  by  their  party 
organization  to  vote  for  no  one  but  a  socialist;  so  they  obeyed 
orders  and  voted  for  Woodfill  on  the  first  ballot,  but  left  the 
house  before  the  second  ballot  was  taken. 

How  these  instructions  were  secured  would  make  an 
interesting  chapter  if  the  details  could  be  learned. 

I  don't  think  Mr.  Woodfill  should  be  blamed  very  much. 
He  merely  obeyed  the  order  of  his  party,  and  yet  there  should 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


have  been  no  party  orders.     Both  Devoid  and  Woodfill  were 
elected  as  non-partisans,  not  as  Socialists. 

Those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Flowers  were: 
Baker  Haislet  Novak 

Baldwin  Harrison,  J.  M.          Papke 

Barten  Harrison,  H.  H.         Pendergast 

Bessette  Hinds  Pless 

Borgen  Hynes  Ribenack 

Bouck  Indrehus  Rodenberg 

Boyd  Kuntz  Sawyer 

Brown  Larimore  Seebacn 

Burrows  Lennon  Schrooten 

Carmichael  Leonard  Sliter 

Condon  Lydiard  Smith 

Davis  McGrath  Spooner 

Dunleavy  .  McLaughlin  Steen 

Dwyer  Malm  berg  Stoetzel 

Erickson  Miner  Sundheimer 

Ferrier  Minnette  Swenson 

Flowers  Moeller  Syverson 

Gerlick  Mueller  Thompson,  A.  L. 

Oilman  Nelson  Thornton 

Girling  Neitzel  Welch 

Greene  Nimocks  Wilkins 

Hafften  Norm 

Those  who  voted  for  Mr.  Gordon  were: 
Adams  Hompe  Pikop 

Anderson  Hulbert  Pratt 

Bendlxen  Johnson,  M.  Putnam 

Bernard  Johnson,  J.  T.  Sanborn 

Bjorge  Kneeland  Searls 

Bjorklund  Knutson  Scott 

Bjornson  Konzen  Sorflaten 

Boehmke  Larson  Southwick 

Christiansen  Lattin  Stenvick 

Corning  Lee  Stevens 

Dare  Madigan  Swanson 

Dealand  Marschalk  Teigen,  A.  F. 

Flinn  Marwin  Teigen,  L.  O. 

Frye  Morken  Thompson,  H.  O. 

Gill  Murphy  Tollefson 

Gordon  Nordgren  Vasaly 

Grant  Norton  Warner 

Guilford  Olien  Wefald 

Hauser  Parker  Weld 

Hogenson  Peterson,  A.  Wilson 

Holmes  Peterson,  A.  M.          Wold 

In  the  contest  for  speaker  Mr.  Spooner  played  a  peculiar 
part. 

He  has  always  posed  as  a  temperance  man,  and  has 
always  voted  for  county  option;  but  he  and  Gordon  have  not 
been  friends  for  many  years,  and  he  refused  to  support  his 
old  time  enemy. 

Neither  would  Mr.  Spooner  declare  for  Flowers.     It  was 

generally  believed  that  he  would  not  object  to  having  the 


10 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

speakership  fall  into  his  own  lap  if  neither  Flowers  nor 
Gordon  could  secure  it. 

Nearly  at  the  last  moment  he  declared  for  Flowers,  and 
it  is  believed  that  he  took  Sawyer  with  him.  It  is  said  on 
pretty  good  authority  that  Spooner  holds  a  second  mortgage 
on  Sawyer's  Montana  fruit  farm.  I  do  not  know  how  true 
this  is;  but,  whatever  the  reason,  Mr.  .Spooner  seems  to  wield 
a  most  powerful  influence  over  Mr.  Sawyer,  an  influence 
which  showed  itself  all  through  the  session. 

Mr.  Spooner  was  made  chairman  of  the  two  most  import- 
ant committees — Appropriations  and  Efficiency  and  Economy. 

When  Mr.  Flowers  had  been  elected  speaker  many 
believed  that  the  cause  of  county  option  was  dead,  but  they 
proved  to  be  poor  prophets. 

The  liquor  interests  had  used  up  all  their  ammunition 
on  the  speakership  contest. 

The  people  back  home  were  soon  heard  from  in  tones 
most  emphatic. 

This  threw  a  wholesome  fear  into  the  leaders  of  the 
liquor  interests.  They  began  to  suspect  that  detectives  were 
on  the  watch;  and  concluded  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to 
attempt  anything  very  crooked. 

Many  of  them  even  believed  that  Gov.  Hammond  would 
veto  a  county  option  bill;  but  here  again  they  were  wrong. 
And  thus  again  was  the  old  truth  exemplified  that  "out  of 
evil  good  may  come." 

CHAPTER   II. 
THE  COMMITTEES  AND  THE  FLOWERS  ORGANIZATION. 

Mr.  Flowers,  all  through  the  long  contest  for  the  speaker- 
ship,  promised  to  be  fair  to  all  in  the  appointment  of  com- 
mittees. 

In  his  address  to  the  members,  after  being  elected  speaker, 
he  reiterated  that  promise. 

How  well  he  kept  his  pledge  may  be  seen  from  the  way 
he  distributed  chairmanships  and  made  up  his  committees. 

The  committee  on  rules  was  very  properly  composed  en- 
tirely of  men  who  had  supported  him  for  speaker. 

In  general  they  reported  the  reformed  rules  of  1913,  but 
with  three  very  important  exceptions  as  follows: 

I.  First,  no  provision  was   made   for  putting  the  mem- 
bers of  any  committee  on  record.     This  left  the  door  open 
for  killing  bills  in  committee  with  no  possibility  of  knowing 
who  did  it. 

II.  The  committee  of  the  whole  House  was  empowered 
to  kill  bills  with  no  chance  to  put  the  members  on  record. 

III.  All   credentials   of  newspaper   representatives   must 
be  submitted  to  the  rules  committee.     This   gave  the  rules 
committee  power  to  exclude  any  newspaper  man  they  pleased. 
It   was   plainly   intended    "to   get"    the   present   writer,    who 
was  not  wanted  there  by  Mr.  Lydiard,  the  ruling  power  in 
the  rules  committee. 

In  fact  Mr.  Lydiard  notified  me  about  the  second  or  third 
day  of  the  session  that  I  would  not  be  permitted  to  come 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  at  all. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 11 

"But,  Mr.  Lydiard,"  said  I,  "I  am  the  duly  authorized 
representative  of  the  St.  Paul  Daily  News." 

"Never  mind,  that  won't  go.  This  is  not  the  Rines  ad- 
ministration, and  you  can't  be  here." 

"I  don't  know  how  much  power  you  are  going  to  have 
here,  Mr.  Lydiard,  but  if  you  want  to  try  such  a  stunt  as  that, 
I  think  I  shall  rather  enjoy  it.  We  can  certainly  have 
some  fun." 

No  further  attempt,  of  any  serious  nature,  was  made  to 
exclude  the  "News  representative"  from  full  and  free  access 
to  all  sessions  of  the  House  and  the  committee  meetings. 

About  a  dozen  of  the  Gordon  men  got  together  and  drew 
up  amendments  to  the  rules,  covering  these  three  points  and 
providing  further  that  all  persons  who  should  appear  to 
advocate  or  oppose  any  bill  at  a  public  hearing  must  give 
name  and  address,  and  state  whom  they  represented. 

These  amendments  were  offered  to  the  rules  committee 
with  the  suggestion  that  the  said  amendments  were  vital 
and  must  be  incorporated  in  the  rules. 

The  rules  committee  gracefully  took  their  medicine.  Evi- 
dently they  did  not  care  to  risk  a  contest. 

It  can  hardly  be  claimed  by  the  rules  committee  that 
these  matters  were  mere  oversights  on  their  part.  For  pub- 
licity is  of  the  most  vital  importance,  and  their  proposed  rules 
carefully  provided  for  no  publicity  at  all. 

As  amended  by  the  Gordon  men,  the  rules  are  now  the 
best  ever  adopted  by  a  Minnesota  legislature. 

They  now  provide  for  the  fullest  possible  publicity  of 
all  that  goes  on,  not  only  on  the  floor  of  the  House  but  also  in 
committees,  where  most  of  the  crooked  work  has  heretofore 
been  done. 

The  Committees. 

It  is  probably  only  human  that  Mr.  Flowers  should  re- 
ward his  own  supporters  with  chairmanships  and  places  on 
responsible  committees,  but  it  hardly  looks  fair  to  load  up 
the  temperance  committee,  for  example,  with  nine  of  the 
most  bitter  opponents  of  all  temperance  legislation,  headed 
by  James  Dwyer  of  Minneapolis. 

James  Dwyer  was  a  member  of  the  1913  House,  and  lined 
up  consistently  with  the  "wets"  in  every  contest.  On 
county  option  he  voted  "No."  He  also  voted  "No"  on  the 
O'Neill  "road  house"  bill,  which  passed  the  House  and  Senate, 
but  was  defeated  in  conference.  Its  purpose  is  to  deny  saloon 
licenses  except  in  incorporated  cities  and  villages  where  there 
is  police  protection. 

The  real  fight  on  the  Wallace-Fosseen  abatement  act  was 
in  the  House  when  a  series  of  amendments  was  offered.  It 
was  late  in  the  session,  and  passage  of  any  amendment  would 
have  thrown  the  bill  back  into  the  Senate,  where  it  would 
have  died.  On  five  of  the  amendments  the  roll  was  called, 
and  Mr.  Dwyer  voted  "Aye"  on  all  of  them.  On  final  passage 
of  the  bill  there  were  only  eleven  negative  votes,  and  Mr. 
Dwyer  was  one  of  eighty-eight  voting  for  it. 


12 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Best  Committees  Gobbled. 

In  twenty-two  important  committees  the  Flowers  men 
had  245  places,  with  eighteen  of  the  chairmanships,  and  the 
Gordon  men.  131  places.  This  does  not  count  the  judiciary 
committee,  which  by  custom  includes  all  the  lawyers  of  the 
House,  and  contained  fifteen  Flowers  men  to  twenty-one 
Gordon  men. 

Several  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  House,  who  had  supported 
Gordon  for  speaker,  were  given  very  little  committee  work. 
This  was  plainly  intended  to  put  them  where  they  could  wield 
no  influence.  But  it  did  not  work  out  that  way;  for  these 
men  had  more  leisure  to  "hunt  woodchucks"  and  a  better 
chance  to  kill  them. 

After  the  county  option  bill  had  passed,  the  Flowers 
organization  rapidly  fell  to  pieces.  There  was  nothing  left 
to  hold  it  together. 

This  situation  was  forcibly  illustrated  by.  the  following 
incident: 

Wholly  by  accident  I  overheard  Mr.  Spooner  say  to  Job 
Lloyd,  the  speaker's  private  secretary:  "By  God,  we  have 
got  to  find  out  who  is  running  this  House.  We  must  know 
whether  we  have  got  any  organization  or  not." 

These  are  possibly  not  the  exact  words,  but  they  convey 
the  idea. 

Later,  shortly  before  the  Gordon  committee  bills  were 
to  come  up,  Mr.  Spooner  was  standing  by  the  reporter's  table 
talking  to  Mr.  Nagle,  when  he  spoke  about  as  follows,  re- 
ferring to  the  Gordon  bills:  "They  can't  do  anything  with 
them.  We  have  got  seventy  votes  pledged  to  kill  them." 

When  these  bills  came  up  a  few  days  later,  six  of  them 
passed.  The  budget  bill  had  only  one  vote  against  it,  Mr. 
Haislet  from  Governor  Hammond's  home  county.  The'  others 
passed  by  very  large  majorities,  excepting  the  bill  to  put  the 
fire  marshal's  department  under  the  insurance  commissioner. 
Even  this  bill  was  passed  sixty-seven  to  forty-seven,  leaving 
sixteen  members  not  voting. 

Mr.  Spooner,  even,  voted  for  the  budget  bill.  He  voted 
against  the  bill  to  abolish  the  game  and  fish  commission, 
and  give  the  Governor  power  to  appoint  the  commissioner. 
On  all  the  other  Gordon  bills,  which  came  up  in  the  afternoon, 
Mr.  Spooner  did  not  vote.  He  answered  to  roll  call  at  2:30 
P.  M.  and  was  present  all  the  afternoon,  but  apparently  did 
not  care  to  go  on  record. 

For  weeks  Spooner  had  been  hard  at  work  for  his 
big  "efficiency  and  economy"  bill,  as  it  was  called,  and  was 
plainly  doing  what  he  could  to  kill  off  the  Gordon  bills  to 
reform  in  some  simple  and  effective  way,  the  most  glaring 
evils  of  the  state  administration. 

But  it  did  not  work  out  according  to  Spooner  s  forecast. 

His  bill  gradually  lost  standing  and  never  came  to  a 
vote.  The  more  it  was  discussed  the  fewer  friends  it  had. 
The  organization  was  powerless  to  save  it,  even  with  the 
Governor's  help. 

Legislative  Expenses. 

So  far  as  supplies  were  concerned,  the  Legislature  of 
1915  cost  the  people  less  than  previous  sessions  of  recent 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 13 

times.  Mr.  Haislet,  chairman  of  the  committee  on  legislative 
expenses,  and  Chief  Clerk  Oscar  Arneson  both  took  great 
care  in  purchasing  supplies  to  get  the  lowest  possible  prices 
and  to  purchase  only  the  necessary  amounts. 

But  there  was  not  the  same  economy  in  the  matter  ot 
clerks,  stenographers,  doorkeepers,  etc.  Far  from  it.  Every 
man  who  voted  for  Flowers  for  speaker  exacted  some  of  the 
patronage  and  got  it,  with  the  result  that  there  were  pages, 
doorkeepers,  clerks,  etc.,  with  nothing  to  do  but  stand  around 
in  the  way,  or  wander  about  the  Capitol  killing  time.  They 
had  little  to  do  but  draw  their  pay.  There  were  nine  clerks 
at  $10  per  day,  where  three  have  usually  been  enough. 

The  Speaker. 

Speaker  Flowers  tried  to  be  fair,  tho  some  of  his 
rulings  will  hardly  stand  criticism.  No  one  could  charge 
him  with  gross  partiality  or  trickery;  and  yet  he  has  not 
been  what  could  truthfully  be  called  a  good  presiding  officer. 

He  lacked  experience,  his  knowledge  of  parliamentary  pro- 
cedure was  very  limited,  his  voice  is  not  strong  enough,  and 
he  did  not  keep  as  good  order  as  should  have  prevailed. 

On  the  other  hand  he  is  a  man  of  exceptionally  good 
personal  habits,  kind,  considerate,  clean  and  generous — never 
touches  either  tobacco  or  liquor — and  you  will  know  him  a 
long  time  without  hearing  an  oath  or  vulgar  expression. 

When  the  liquor  interests  organized  the  House,  the 
"powers  that  prey"  held  a  jubilee  and  prepared  for  a  feast; 
but  they  have  had  to  be  content  with  very  poor  pickings — 
indeed  they  have  gone  away  very  hungry,  and  they  are  likely 
to  wander  in  the  desert  for  some  time  to  come. 

This  is  largely  due  to  the  "non-partisan"  Legislature. 

CHAPTER  III. 

TYING    UP    MEMBERS. 

Don't  handle  pitch.  It  is  pretty  sure  to  spoil  your  good 
clothes. 

The  child  that  plays  with  fire  is  apt  to  burn  his  fingers. 

The  member  who  makes  a  deal  and  gets  patronage, 
has  put  his  foot  into  a  trap  that  will  be  hard  to  get  out  of. 

The  representatives  of  the  special  interests  know  this 
very  well  and  lay  their  plans  accordingly. 

With  the  bait  of  patronage  and  committee  appointments, 
the  members  are  led  along.  Little  by  little  they  become 
entangled.  The  insidious  influence  of  obligation  is  wound 
about  them.  They  do  not  realize  it  until  it  is  too  late.  Then 
they  find  themselves  firmly  bound  and  escape  impossible. 

George  H.  Sullivan  of  Stillwater  is  a  bold,  open,  avowed 
opponent  of  what  is  known  as  "progressive  legislation." 
Most  of  his  work  is  above  board,  and  he  has  the  reputation 
of  being  a  fair  fighter. 

But  George  is  long-headed  and  wise.  If  by  means  of 
patronage  he  can  tie  up  a  large  number  of  members, 
several  of  them  at  least  will  be  pretty  sure  to  stay  tied.  Un- 
consciously they  will  have  leanings,  and  their  votes  will  be 
secured  for  measures  that  they  would  not  otherwise  support. 


14  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

The  Patronage  Bait. 

There  are  sixty-seven  members  of  the  Senate.  There  are 
not  enough  jobs  to  give  each  senator  one  place  to  fill. 

Senators  Lende  and  Sageng  proposed  that  lots  be  drawn 
and  one  half  the  senators  be  allowed  to  name  employees  for 
the  session  of  1915,  and  that  the  other  half  be  given  the 
patronage  of  1917.  This  they  contended  would  be  ample 
help  to  do  the  work  of  the  session. 

Sullivan  and  Putnam  wanted  more  jobs  to  fill  and  offered 
patronage  to  all  who  had  been  in  either  house  before.  Some 
of  the  old  members  refused  and  then  new  members  were 
taken  in. 

After  the  Senate  had  elected,  according  to  custom,  a 
chief  clerk,  a  first  assistant,  an  engrossing  clerk,  an  enrolling 
clerk  and  a  sergeant-at-arms,  Mr.  Putnam  offered  a  complete 
list  of  all  Senate  employees,  and  moved  the  adoption  of  his 
resolution. 

Mr.  Sageng  raised  the  point  of  order  that  the  resolution 
was  contrary  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  and  therefore  could  not 
be  adopted,  as  the  Senate  had  not  yet  adopted  any  rules  pro- 
viding for  the  appointment  of  employees. 

Lieutenant  Governor  Burnquist  ruled  with  Sageng,  and 
Putnam  appealed  from  the  ruling. 

However,  this  was  a  little  too  raw  to  try  to  put  over, 
so  the  combine  moved  to  take  a  recess  till  4  P.  M. 

In  the  meantime  they  prepared  two  permanent  rules 
which  would  allow  them  to  put  through  their  patronage 
program. 

The  two  permanent  rules  and  the  patronage  resolution 
were  combined,  and  offered  as  a  new  resolution  after  they 
had  backed  down  from  their  appeal  from  the  ruling  of  Burn- 
quist. 

Senator  Alley  offered  a  substitute  resolution  providing 
for  a  much  smaller  force  of  helpers,  but  not  naming  them. 

Alley's  resolution  was  defeated  and  the  program  of  the 
combine  was  put  over  by  the  following  vote,  forty-seven  to 
twenty. 

Those  who  voted  for  fewer  employees  and  economy  were: 
Alley  Hanson  Peterson,  Clay 

Bonniwell  Hegnes  Peterson,  Meeker 

Campbell,  Henn.        Holmberg  Potter 

Gandrud  Jones  Rustad 

Gillam  Lende  Sageng 

Gjerset  Lobeck  Vermilya 

Griggs  O'Neill 

Those  who  stood  for  patronage  were: 
Adams  Collister  Handlan 

Andrews  Denegre  Healy 

Baldwin  Dunn,  Mille  Lcs.        Hilbert 

Benson  Dunn,  Ramsey  Jackson 

Blomgren  Duxbury  Johnston 

Buckler  Dwlnnell  Knopp 

Callahan  Gardner  McGarry 

Campbell,  Mower       Glotzbach  Millett 

Carley  Grose  Nelson 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915  15 


Nord 

Rockne 

Van  Hoven 

Orr 

Rystrom 

Vibert 

Palmer 

Steffen 

Wallace 

Pauly 

Sullivan,  Stearns 

Ward 

Peterson,  St.  L. 

Sullivan,  Wash. 

Weis 

Putnam 

Swenson 

Westlake 

Ries 

Turnham 

Some  of  the  members  had  got  jobs  for  their  friends, 
and  the  process  of  tying  them  up  had  begun. 

The  Next  Move — President  Pro  Tern. 

Who  shall  be  the  temporary  president  of  the  Senate  may 
not  be  a  matter  of  much  concern;  and  yet  it  may. 

If  the  Lieutenant  Governor  is  always  there  to  preside, 
the  honor  of  being  president  pro  tern,  is  an  empty  one  or 
nearly  so  except  the  prestige  it  gives;  but  if  the  Lieutenant 
Governor  should  be  sick  or  die,  the  place  of  president  pro 
tern,  would  carry  with  it  much  power. 

The  interests  are  always  alert.  Having  tied  up  a  large 
number  of  members  with  the  rope  of  patronage,  the  next 
move  was  to  make  George  H.  Sullivan  president  pro  tern,  of 
the  Senate.  And  it  worked. 

True,  not  all  of  those  who  had  secured  plums  of  patronage 
stayed  put.  The  following  revolted  and  refused  to  go  any 
further : 

Andrews  Jackson  Rockne 

Benson  Nelson  Rystrom 

Blomgren  Orr  Turnham 

Dwinnell  Palmer 

However,  Griggs  and  Hegnes,  who  had  not  been  in  the 
patronage  deal,  now  joined  the  successful  forces  and  helped 
elect  Sullivan  president  pro  tern. 

The  opponents  of  Sullivan  put  forward  Benson  of  Nicollet 
county,  who  had  been  a  consistent  supporter  of  progressive 
measures,  but  were  unable  to  control  enough  votes  to  elect  him. 

The  vote  stood  as  follows: 

For  Sullivan — 

Adams  Glotzbach  Peterson,  G.  M. 

Baldwin  Griggs  Putnam 

Buckler  Grose  Ries 

Callahan  Handlan  Steffen 

Campbell,  A.  S.          Hegnes  Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Carley  Hilbert  Swenson 

Collester  Johnston  Van  Hoven 

Denegre  Knopp  Vibert 

Dunn,  R.  C.  McGarry  Wallace 

Dunn,  W.  W.  Millett  Ward 

Duxbury  Nord  Weis 

Gardner  Pauly  Westlake 

Senator  Healy  should  be  credited  as  being  for  Sullivan, 
though  he  was  absent  and  could  not  be  located. 

For  Benson — 

Alley  Campbell,  W.  A.         Gjerset 

Andrews  Dwinnell  Hanson 

Blomgren  Gandrud  Holmberg 

Bonniwell  Gillam  Jackson 


16  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


Jones 

Palmer 

Ry  strom 

Lende 

Peterson,  B.  P. 

Sageng 

Lobeck 

Peterson,  F.  H. 

Turnham 

Nelson 

Potter 

Vermilya 

O'Neill 

Rockne 

Orr 

Rustad 

If  Griggs  and  Hegnes  had  stood  out,  and  Vibert,  Wallace 
and  Ward  who  are  also  supposed  to  be  progressives,  had  voted 
the  other  way,  the  results  would  have  been  thirty-three  to 
thirty-one  for  Benson. 

Several  senators  who  voted  for  Sullivan  denied  that  it 
meant  anything,  and  insisted  that  they  were  still  free  and 
independent.  Maybe  so,  but  we  shall  see  later. 

It  is  probable  that  Mr.  Putnam  and  several  others  who 
were  in  this  patronage  deal  would  disclaim  any  intention 
to  tie  up  members  in  order  to  use  them;  and  we  may 
freely  admit  that  their  motives  and  intentions  might  have 
been  of  the  best;  but  the  results  are  the  same,  whatever  the 
intentions,  and  new  members  especially  are  sure  to  be  in- 
fluenced in  such  ways  as  this. 

A  careful  scrutiny  of  the  votes  on  measures  all  through 
the  session  will  show  that, this  patronage  deal  at  the  start 
did  tie  men  up  more  or  less  effectively  and  influence  their 
votes. 

After  the  session  was  over  one  senator  remarked  to  a 
friend,  "Thank  God,  I'm  a  free  man  once  more;  I'll  never  get 
tied  up  again." 

In  the  House. 

In  the  House  it  was  the  same.  Some  of  the  men  who 
had  gone  into  the  Flowers  organization  and  received  patronage 
were  plainly  held  in  more  or  less  bondage  all  the  session. 

Next  to  the  evil  of  patronage  and  prestige,  comes  the 
evil  of  local  and  special  legislation.  Many  members  come 
with  only  one  object  in  view — some  special  law  they  want 
passed,  some  local  improvement  they  want  to  get  at  the  ex- 
pense of  the  whole  state;  or  some  state  institution  that  they 
want  for  their  district.  The  demand  for  a  new  normal  school 
at  Bemidji  kept  the  members  from  that  and  surrounding  dis- 
tricts tied  up  all  the  session.  Perhaps  the  school  is  needed, 
perhaps  not,  but  it  was  good  trading  stock  all  the  session, 
and  was  used  for  all  it  was  worth.  They  did  not  get  much — 
$25,000  for  a  foundation — but  once  started  it  will  go  on. 

But  thru  it  all  there  was  one  kind  of  bondage  that 
was  absent.  The  legislature  was  non-partisan.  The  party 
lash  could  not  be  cracked,  nor  party  superstition  appealed  to. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
SELF  GOVERNMENT. 

It  is  more  important  that  people  should  have  the  right 
to  govern  themselves  than  that  they  should  govern  themselves 
right. 

Whence  comes  it — this  thing  we  call  the  right  to  vote? 
this  right  to  have  a  voice  in  our  common  affairs?  this  right 
to  take  part  in  making  the  laws  by  which  we  are  to  be 
governed  ? 

Is  it  a  right  at  all,  or  is  it  a  mere  privilege  that  may  be 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 17 

granted  or  withheld?  If  it  is  a  privilege,  who  may  grant  it — 
who  withhold? 

Are  some  of  us  so  endowed  by  nature  that  we  may 
arrogate  to  ourselves  all  rights  and  powers  over  our  fellow 
men  and  women?  that  we  may  dole  out  to  them  such  grants 
of  privilege  as  we  may  graciously  see  fit  to  bestow?  that  we 
may  deny  and  withhold  anything  or  all  things  as  best  may 
please  ourselves? 

Are  some  of  us  created  kings  and  czars  and  overlords, 
and  the  rest  of  us  servants  and  subjects,  serfs  and  slaves 
who  may  have  no  voice  nor  vote,  but,  meek  and  humble, 
must  cringe  and  cower  and  obey? 

Is  the  Declaration  of  Independence  wrong  when  it  de- 
clares that  "all  men  are  created  equal — that  they  are  en- 
dowed by  their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights — that 
among  these  are  the  right  to  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit 
of  happiness?" 

Is  that  Declaration  wrong  when  it  asserts  that  govern- 
ments are  set  up  among  men  for  the  sole  purpose  of  guarding 
and  protecting  these  rights,  and  that  they  derive  all  their 
just  power  from  the  consent  of  the  governed? 

I  believe  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  I  believe 
that  it  sets  forth  an  eternal  truth.  All  men  are  "created 
equal,"  so  far  as  their  right  to  be  in  this  world  is  concerned, 
and  to  use  its  surface  on  which  to  live  and  from  which  to 
draw  the  materials  for  their  food,  clothing  and  shelter  and 
all  the  other  good  things  which  their  labor  applied  to  the 
earth's  resources  is  capable  of  producing. 

It  is  true  that  all  men  are  not  equally  strong  nor  equally 
intelligent;  but  they  all  have  the  same  right  to  be  in  this 
world  and  to  work  for  their  living. 

These  differences  in  strength  and  intelligence  are  Nature's 
method  for  the  improvement  of  the  race.  The  strongest  and 
ablest  will  get  the  most,  of  course;  but  if  all  have  the  same 
chance,  each  will  get  what  his  labor  produces,  and  none  will 
have  cause  to  complain. 

Why    Government   at   All? 

Here  then  is  the  reason  for  government — to  secure  to  all 
an  equal  chance — a  square  deal.  When  governments  fail  to 
do  this,  they  fail  in  their  first  and  most  important  duty,  and 
it  is  only  too  true  that  they  have  failed  in  the  past  and 
do  now  fail. 

For  this  reason  we  should  mend  our  government,  not 
end  it. 

This  is  the  reason  why  we  should  restore  to  the  people 
the  rights  that  have  been  denied  them, — why  we  should  amend 
and  repeal  bad  statutes  and  bring  them  into  harmony  with 
the  laws  of  Nature.  She  brings  us  all  into  the  world  naked 
and  empty-handed,  but  she  has  furnished  us  here  a  most  won- 
derful storehouse,  full  of  all  the  things  we  need  in  the 
pursuit  of  life,  liberty  and  happiness. 

It  is  the  duty  of  government  not  to  lock  the  doors  of  this 
storehouse  to  any,  but  to  see  that  they  are  open  to  all  on 
equal  terms. 


18 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Early  Society  Always  Democratic. 

Among  all  races,  and  in  every  part  of  the  world,  primitive 
societies  have  always  been  democratic.  All  the  people  have 
come  together  to  talk  over  their  common  affairs  and  to  decide 
what  shall  be  done.  And  in  these  primitive  gatherings  the 
women  as  well  as  the  men  had  their  say  and  their  vote. 

Herbert  Spencer,  in  his  descriptive  sociology,  cites  hun- 
dreds of  cases  of  this  kind  and  other  investigators  confirm 
his  conclusions. 

It  is  not  until  militarism  supplants  the  primitive  in- 
dustrial society,  that  classes  arise,  that  privileges  are  granted, 
that  some  are  set  above  others,  and  women  denied  their  place 
in  the  public  council  and  their  vote  in  the  fmal  decision. 

It  is  the  greatest  problem  of  modern  democracy  to  wipe 
out  these  classes,  to  destroy  privilege,  and  to  restore  to  all- 
men  and  women  alike — their  equal  and  inalienable  right  to 
be  in  this  world,  to  use  its  material  substance  to  get  a  living, 
and  to  take  part  in  the  common  affairs  of  their  local  com- 
munities, the  state  and  the  nation. 

The   Scope   of  Government   Limited. 

To  take  part  in  the  common  affairs — this  is  the  scope  of 
government. 

Most  of  our  affairs  are  not  common.  Most  of  the  rela- 
tions of  men  and  women  are  personal  and  private  and  in 
these  fields  government  must  not  meddle. 

Wherever  it  has  so  meddled  it  has  made  a  mess  of  it. 
.  The  human  race  is  not  yet  as  wise  as  it  will  be,  and 
hence  our  constitution  and  laws  are  imperfect.     They  must 
be  changed,  if  our  civilization  is  to  grow  and  expand. 
The  Bill  of  Rights. 

All  written  constitutions  contain  a  bill  of  rights — an 
enumeration  of  certain  things  that  are  the  sacred  rights  of  the 
people  with  which  governments  must  not  meddle. 

This  is  good  so  far  as  it  goes;  but  until  recently  no  con- 
stitution contained  any  provision  by  which  the  people  could 
act  directly.  They  all  provided  for  what  is  called 

Representative  Government. 

Now  representative  government  is  not  democracy.  It  is 
not  self  government,  any  more  than  monarchies  and  despotisms 
are  self  government. 

This  is  the  reason  why  there  is  everywhere  a  demand 
for  a  restoration  to  the  people  of  their  ancient  and  natural 
right  to  govern  themselves  directly. 

Not  that  any  one  desires  to  destroy  representative  gov- 
ernment and  supplant  it  with  a  system  where  the  people  shall 
do  all  things  directly;  but  that  the  people  shall  reserve  to 
themselves  the  right  to  act  directly  if  their  representatives 
refuse  or  neglect  to  obey  their  wish. 

Initiative,  Referendum,  Recall. 

With  the  initiative  the  people  themselves  can  start  things. 
They  can  propose  and  enact  laws,  or  amend  or  repeal  existing 
laws,  if  the  legislature  fail  or  neglect  to  do  so. 

By  means  of  the  referendum  the  people  can  veto  bad  laws 
that  their  representatives  may  have  passed. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 19 

We  now  invest  the  Governor  with  the  power  of  the  veto. 
The  referendum  would  add  to  this  a  veto  by  the  people. 
Perhaps  then  the  Governor's  veto  would  not  be  needed. 

By  means  of  the  recall  the  people  can  put  out  of  office 
and  retire  to  private  life  any  public  servant  who  goes  wrong. 

These  three  simple  measure  give  back  to  the  people  those 
inherent  rights  that  all  arbitrary  and  even  representative 
governments  have  denied  them.  As  President  Wilson  so  aptly 
put  it,  "They  are  the  gun  behind  the  door."  They  will  not 
need  to  be  used  very  much.  The  simple  fact  that  they  are 
there  will  usually  be  enough.  But  it  is  well  to  have  them 
there. 

The  legislature  of  1913  submitted  to  the  people  constitu- 
tional amendments  providing  for  the  initiative  and  referendum 
and  for  the  recall. 

Both  these  amendments  received  enormous  majorities, — 
the  initiative  and  referendum  over  four  to  one,  and  the  recall 
nearly  four  to  one, — but  they  both  failed  because  it  is  so  very 
difficult  to  amend  our  state  constitution. 

Why  it  is  so  hard  is  fully  set  forth  in  the  section  on 
amending  our  constitution. 

The  bill  to  submit  to  the  people  again  the  initiative  and 
referendum  amendment  came  up  in  the  House  on  March  3rd 
and  was  very  hotly  opposed  by  a  few  reactionaries. 

Larimore  and  Carmichael  eloquently  defended  our  sacred 
representative  system,  and  declared  the  initiative  and  referen- 
dum a  failure. 

Mr.  Steen  rather  took  the  wind  out  of  them  by  demanding 
to  know  if  they  had  been  a  failure  in  Switzerland. 

Mr.  Larimore  replied  that  the  legislature  is  good  enough, 
and  Mr.  Gilman  expressed  great  fear  of  the  people;  but  they 
had  few  supporters  when  it  came  to  the  roll  call. 

The  bill  was  passed  106  to  twelve,  as  follows: 
Adams  Ferrier  Lee 

Anderson  Flinn  Lennon 

Baker  Frye  Leonard 

Baldwin  Gill  McGrath 

Barten  Gordon  McLaughlin 

Bendixen  Grant  Madigan 

Bernard  Guilford  Marschalk 

Bessette  Hafften  Marwin 

Bjorge  Haislet  Miner 

Bjorklund  Hauser  Minnette 

Bjornson  Hinds,  E.  R.  Morken 

Boehmke  Hynes,  J.  H.  Mueller 

Borgen  Hogenson  Murphy 

Burrows  Holmes  Nelson 

Christiansen  Hompe  Nietze.1 

Corning  Hulbert  Nimocks 

Dare  Indrehus  Nordgren 

Davis  Johnson,  J.  T.  Norton 

Dealand  .       Johnson,  M.  Novak 

Devoid  Kneeland  Olien 

Dunleavy  Kuntz  Parker 

Dwyer  Larson  Pendergast 

Erickson  Lattin  Peterson,  A. 


20  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


Peterson,  A.  M. 

Spooner 

Tollefson 

Pikop 

Steen 

Vasaly 

Pless 

Stenvick 

Warner 

Putnam 

Stevens 

Wefald 

Ribenack 

Stoetzel 

Welch 

Sanborn 

Sudheimer 

Weld 

Sawyer 

Swanson 

Wilkins 

Searls 

Swenson 

Wilson 

Seebach 

Syverson 

Wold 

Scott 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Woodfill 

Sliter 

Thompson,  A.  L. 

Mr.  Speaker 

Smith 

Thompson,  H.  0. 

Sorflaten 

Thornton 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative 

were: 

Bouck 

Gilman 

Lydiard 

Carmichael 

Girling 

Papke 

Condon 

Harrison,  J.  M. 

Rodenberg. 

Gerlich 

Larimore 

Schrooten 

The    following 

twelve    members 

did    not    vote:      Boyd 

Brown,  Green,  H.  H.  Harrison,  Knutson,  Konzen,  Malmberg, 
Moeller,  North,  Pratt,  Southwick  and  A.  F.  Teigen.  Mr.  Knut- 
son did  not  have  much  faith  in  the  bill  but  would  have  voted 
"Yes"  if  necessary  to  pass  it. 

All  of  the  others  would  have  voted  for  the  bill  if  they 
had  been  present. 

Mr.  Boyd  had  been  sick   for  sometime.     Konzen,   North 
and  Teigen  were  away  on  an  important  legislative  investiga- 
tion, and  some  of  the  others  had  been  excused. 
In  the  Senate. 

As  it  came  from  the  House  and  with  some  amendments 
by  the  Senate,  the  bill  was  liberal  and  fair,  not  radical  by  any 
means.  It  provided  a  method  by  which  the  constitution  could 
be  amended  somewhat  more  easily  than  at  present;  but  only 
a  little  more  easily.  It  still  required  an  affirmative  vote  of 
three-sevenths  of  all  those  voting  at  the  election  to  carry 
an  amendment  to  the  constitution;  and  it  also  required  that 
four-sevenths  of  all  those  voting  on  the  question  should  be 
in  the  affirmative. 

The  first  attack  was  made  by  George  H.  Sullivan  in  an 
amendment  requiring  a  majority  of  all  voting  at  the  election 
to  vote  for  the  amendment  in  order  to  pass  it. 

This  is  the  present  system  under  which  we  have  found 
it  so  nearly  impossible  to  change  our  fundamental  law. 

Sullivan  and  Duxbury  spoke  long  and  earnestly  defending 
our  "sacred  representative  system"  and  the  "wisdom  of  our 
ancestors"  who  created  the  "perfect  document,"  our  "won- 
derful constitution." 

They  carefully  refrained  from  explaining,  that  this  par- 
ticular feature  of  our  constitution  which  they  were  defending 
was  slyly  slipped  in  by  the  liquor  interests  in  1898,  when  the 
people  were  not  looking. 

Senator  Sageng  showed  up  this  feature  .of  the  constitu- 
tion as  a  system  that  takes  all  the  ignorance  and  stupidity 
of  the  state — all  the  voters  who  are  too  careless  or  too  stupid 
to  vote  at  all — and  carefully  counts  them  just  as  if  they  had 
intelligently  voted  "no"  on  the  proposition. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


21 


"Does  this  tend  to  intelligent  citizenship?  Let  us  make 
it  a  little  easier  to  amend  this  document" 

When  the  votes  were  counted  Sullivan  had  succeeded 
thirty-five  to  thirty-two,  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 


Adams 

Griggs 

Ries 

Baldwin 

Grose 

Steffen 

Blomgren 

Hanaian 

Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Buckler 

Healy 

Sullivan,   J.   D. 

Callahan 

Hilbert 

Swenson 

Campbell, 

A.    S.         Johnston 

Van  Hoven 

Denegre 

Knopp 

Vibert 

Dunn,  R. 

C.                McGarry 

Wallace 

Dunn,  W. 

W.               Nelson 

Ward 

Duxbury 

Nord 

Weis 

Gjerset 

Pauly 

Westlake 

Glotzbach 

Peterson,  G.  M. 

These 

who  voted  in  the  negative 

were: 

Alley 

Hanson 

Peterson,  E.  P. 

Andrews 

Hegnes 

Peterson,  F.  H. 

Benson 

Holmberg 

Potter 

Bonniwell 

Jackson 

Putnam 

Campbell, 

W.  A.         Jones 

Rockne 

Carley 

Lende 

Rustad 

Collester 

Lobeck 

Rystrom 

Dwinnell 

Millett 

Sageng 

Gandrud 

O'Neill 

Turnham 

Gardner 

Orr 

Vermilya 

Gillam 

Palmer 

Duxbury  next  attacked  the  provision  which  placed  this 
amendment  first  upon  the  ballot.  It  had  been  first  in  1914, 
for  the  reason  that  it  was  regarded  as  the  most  important. 
And  if  this  could  be  passed  it  would  make  it  easier  to  pass 
other  much  needed  amendments. 

Duxbury,  Sullivan  and  other  howled  against  favoritism 
and  secured  five  votes  that  had  refused  to  go  with  them  on 
the  first  amendment — Andrews,  Collester,  Gardner,  Hegnes 
and  Millett.  Griggs  refused  to  go  this  time  and  voted  with 
those  who  thought  this  amendment  worthy  of  first  place. 

The  line  of  cleavage  was  nearly  the  same  as  on  county 
option. 

Only  five  "wets"  voted  for  the  liberal  bill:  Bonniwell, 
Carley,  Collester,  Gardner  and  Millett. 

Eight  of  the  dry  men  went  with  Sullivan:  Bob  Dunn, 
Duxbury,  Gjerset,  Griggs,  Nelson,  Vibert,  Wallace  and  Ward. 

Only  eight  voted  against  the  bill  on  final  passage: 
Bob  Dunn,  W.  W.  Dunn,  Duxbury,  Healy,  Knopp,  Ries,  Steffen 
and  Van  Hoven. 

At  first  Handlan  voted  no,  but  changed  to  yes  before  the 
vote  was  announced. 

These  eight  may  be  set  down  as  utterly  opposed  to 
the  initiative  and  referendum — opposed  to  any  return  to  dem- 
ocratic government  and  the,  rule  of  the  people. 

Duxbury  admitted  that  he  had  voted  for  county  option 
against  his  personal  convictions,  but  because  his  constituents 
required  it  of  him. 


22 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Sageng  showed  that  Duxbury's  district  had  cast  more 
votes  in  favor  of  the  initiative  and  referendum  than  for  Dux- 
bury  himself,  but  this  did  not  phase  the  doughty  champion  of 
things  as  they  are. 

In  the  long  drawn-out  contest  only  four  men  attacked  the 
bill:  George  H.  Sullivan,  R.  C.  Dunn,  W.  W.  Dunn  and 
Duxbury, 

On  the  side  of  the  people  and  greater  liberality  of  amend- 
ment were  Sageng,  William  A.  Campbell,  Gillam,  Alley,  P.  H. 
Peterson,  Rockne,  Putnam  and  Dwinnell,  al\  of  whom  spoke 
favorably  for  the  bill. 

The  House  refused  to  concur  in  the  Senate  amendments, 
and  the  conference  finally  agreed  on  a  bill  almost  exactly  like 
the  one  voted  on  in  1914. 

This  bill  gives  the  people  at  least  three  considerable  gains 
over  the  present  system. 

First,  it  is  considerably  easier  to  amend  the  constitution. 

Second,  it  gives  us  a  practical  working  initiative,  fair  and 
reasonably  easy  to  operate. 

Third,  it  establishes  the  referendum  with  easy  working 
machinery. 

Let  every  one  help  and  this  will  be  adopted  in  1916. 

Equal  Suffrage. 

If  the  initiative,  referendum  and  recall  are  an  essential 
part  of  self  government,  then  surely  equal  suffrage  for  women 
is  more  so. 

If  "governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed,"  what  shall  we  say  of  a  system  that 
denies  to  one-half  the  governed  all  opportunity  to  vote? 

In  the  Senate  on  March  4th  the  matter  came  up  in  the 
form  of  an  amendment  to  the  constitution.  The  men  of  the 
state  were  to  be  permitted  to  vote  on  the  question. 

As  Senator  P.  H.  Peterson  of  Moorhead  put  it,  "What  is 
before  us?  We  are  the  court.  The  voters  are  the  jury.  We 
have  no  right  to  hold  this  case  away  from  the  jury." 

Senator  Putnam:  "It  is  with  you.  It  will  not  down. 
Send  it  to  the  men.  Let  them  decide." 

Senator  Jones:  "The  federation  of  labor,  38,000  strong, 
demand  it.  You  can't  afford  to  ignore  them." 

Senator  Dwinnell:  "I  have  seen  it  work.  It  works  well. 
It  has  brought  good  results  where  it  has  been  tried.  Submit 
the  question  to  the  men.  Let  them  settle  it.  It  is  not  our 
right  to  decide,  but  the  right  of  the  voters." 

Pauly,  George  H.  Sullivan  and  Duxbury  did  most  of  the 
speaking  in  opposition. 

None  of  them  said  anything  on  the  real  question  at  issue — 
to  let  the  male  voters  of  the  state  decide — but  all  went  into 
long  arguments  against  votes  for  women. 

Mr.  Pauly  had  a  carefully  prepared  speech  which  he  read 
with  considerable  force  and  eloquence.  It  contained  all  the 
usual  objections  to  equal  suffrage,  but  not  a  word  to  show 
why  the  men  of  the  state  should  be  denied  the  right  to  vote 
on  the  question. 

George  H.  Sullivan  gave  utterance  to  some  gems.  "The 
women  now  begin  the  political  education  of  the  men."  "They 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 23 

train  the  boys."     Does  that  therefore  unfit  the  women  from 
taking  any  part  in  public  affairs  themselves? 

"The  social  unit  is  the  family,  and  this  should  be  the 
voting  unit."  What  is  the  logic  of  this?  Wouldn't  it  require 
the  father  to  do  all  the  voting?  Where  would  the  grown  up 
boys  come  in?  Suppose  there  were  no  men  in  the  family, 
who  then  would  do  its  voting? 

"If  the  women  want  anything  or  need  anything  let  them 
come  to  us."  And  pray,  who  are  "MS";  and  who  has  given  "MS" 
all  political  rights,  even  to  deny  to  the  men  of  the*  state  a 
vote  on  this  vital  question. 

"Women  now  have  the  right  to  elect  their  husbands!" 
But  perhaps  they  have  other  needs,  George;  and  then  how 
about  the  women  who  have  no  husbands? 

"If  women  vote  they  will  undermine  the  family  and 
destroy  the  social  unit."  Oh,  yes,  George,  we  all  know  how 
completely  they  have  undermined  the  family  and  destroyed 
the  social  unit  wherever  they  have  had  a  chance  to  vote. 

The  bill  finally  came  to  a  vote  with  the  following  result: 
Thirty-three  to  thirty-four. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Alley  Gillam  Peterson,  E.  P. 

Andrews  Gjerset  Peterson,  F.  H. 

Benson  Griggs  Potter 

Blomgren  Hanson  Putnam 

Campbell,  W.  A.        Holmberg  Rustad 

Carley  Jones  Rystrom 

Denegre  Lende  Sageng 

Dunn,  R.  C.  Lobeck  Turnham 

Dwinnell  O'Neill  Vermilya 

Gandrud  Orr  Vibert 

Gardner  Palmer  Wallace 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Adams  Healy  Ries 

Baldwin  Hegnes  Rockne 

Bonniwell  Hilbert  Steffen 

Buckler  Jackson  Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Callahan  Johnston  Sullivan,   J.   D. 

Campbell,  A.  S.          Knopp  Swenson 

Collester  McGarry  Van  Hoven 

Dunn,  W.  W.  Millett  Ward 

Duxbury  Nelson  Weis 

Glotzbach  Nord  Westlake 

Grose  Pauly 

Handlan  Peterson,  G.  M. 

For  some  time  the  vote  stood  a  tie,  thirty-three  to  thirty- 
three.  Then  Senator  A.  S.  Campbell  of  Austin  was  found 
and  voted  no.  To  Mr.  Campbell  belongs  the  distinction  of 
having  saved  the  male  voters  of  the  state  the  labor  of  taking 
thought  and  voting  upon  this  important  question. 

The  women  had  good  reason  to  expect  the  vote  of  Adams, 
Grose  and  Ward.  Indeed  they  claimed  that  these  men  had  all 
pledged  their  support. 

In  the  House. 

Having  lost  their  case  in  the  Senate  the  advocates  of 
equal  suffrage  for  women  concluded  to  bring  the  matter  up 
in  the  House  in  a  different  form. 


24 


The    Minnesota,    Legislature    of    1915 


A  bill  was  introduced  to  secure  to  women  the  right  to 
vote  at  presidential  primaries  and  for  .the  nomination  and 
election  of  presidential  electors. 

A  majority  of  the  elections  committee  reported  the  bill 
out  for  indefinite  postponement,  which  is  the  usual  way  to 
kill  a  bill. 

A  minority  report  to  place  the  bill  on  general  orders  was 
signed  by  T.  T.  Morken,  Carl  A.  Wold,  Charles  L.  Sawyer 
and  J.  H.  Boyd. 

The-  vote  was  taken  upon  the  minority  report  to  give 
the  bill  a  chance  and  stood  sixty-five  to  forty-four  in  favor. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 


Adams 

Harrison,  J.  M. 

Sanborn 

Anderson 

Hauser 

Sawyer 

Baldwin 

Hynes,  J.  H. 

Searls 

Bendixen 

Holmes 

Seebach 

Bernard 

Hompe 

Scott 

B  jorge 

Hulbert 

Sorflaten 

Bjorklund 

Johnson,  M. 

Southwick 

Bjornson 

Larimore 

Stenvick 

Boyd 

Larson 

Stevens 

Christianson 

Lattin 

Swanson 

Corning 

Lee 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

Dare 

Madigan 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Davis 

Marwin 

Thompson,  A.  L. 

Dealand 

Morken 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Flinn 

Murphy 

Tollefson 

Prye 

Nordgren 

Vasaly 

Gill 

Norton 

Warner 

Gordon 

Olien 

Wefald 

Grant 

Parker 

Weld 

Greene 

Peterson  ,  A. 

Wilson 

Guilford 

Pratt, 

Wold 

Harrison,  H.  H. 

Putnam 

Those  who 

voted  in  the  negative 

were: 

Baker 

Hogenson 

North 

Barten 

Indrehus 

Papke 

Bessette 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Peterson,  A.  M. 

Boehmke 

Konzen 

Rodenberg 

Bouck 

Kuntz 

Schrooten 

Carmichael 

Lennon 

-  Smith 

Condon 

Leonard 

Spooner 

Dunleavy 

McGrath 

Steen 

Dwyer 

McLaughlin 

Stoetzel 

Erickson 

Malmberg 

Sudheimer 

Gerlich 

Minnette 

Swenson 

Gilman 

Moeller 

Syverson 

Girling 

Nelson 

Thornton 

Hafften 

Nietzel 

Welch 

Haislet 

Nimocks 

This  left  twenty-one  members  not  voting:  Borgen,  Brown, 
Burrows,  Devoid,  Ferrier,  E.  R.  Hinds,  Kneeland,  Knutson, 
Lydiard,  Marschalk,  Miner,  Mueller,  Novak,  Pendergast,  Pikop, 
Pless,  Ribenack,  Sliter,  Wilkins,  Woodfill  and  Speaker  Flowers. 

Of  these  Burrows,  Devoid,  Kneeland,   Marschalk,   Pikop, 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    J915 26 

Pendergast  and  Woodfill  are  known  to  be  for  equal  suffrage. 

This  would  have  passed  the  House  with  a  good  majority 
if  it  could  ever  have  secured  the  necessary  eighty-seven  votes 
to  bring  it  to  final  passage. 

It  was  near  the  close  of  the  session  and  the  bill  failed 
along  with  several  hundred  others. 

Amending  the  Constitution. 

Should  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state  put  a  premium 
on  ignorance  and  carelessness?  Is  it  fair  that  men  who  are 
too  ignorant  of  the  merits  of  a  question  to  vote  on  it  at  all 
should  have  their  votes  counted  either  way?  Is  it  right  that 
the  voter  who  is  so  careless  or  indifferent  that  he  neglects 
his  opportunity  to  vote  should  be  counted  as  voting  no? 

There  would  seem  to  be  but  one  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions. It  would  seem  that  constitutions  should  be  made  and 
amended  by  the  votes  of  those  who  have  enough  interest  in 
such  matters  to  cast  a  ballot,  and  not  by  those  who  fail  to  do 
so.  By  what  process  of  logic  do  we  persist  in  counting  the 
votes  of  those  who  voluntarily  disfranchise  themselves?  Why 
should  we  presume  that  everyone  who  does  not  vote  at  all 
intends ^to  vote  "no?" 

All  this  seems  very  stupid  and  ridiculous,  and  yet  it 
is  a  fact  that  we  have  just  those  conditions  in  Minnesota. 
Our  constitution  cannot  be  amended  in  the  slightest  detail 
unless  more  than  half  of  all  those  who  go  to  the  polls  and 
vote  at  all  shall  cast  a  vote  in  favor  of  the  amendment 
proposed. 

EVery  voter  who  is  so  ignorant  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ment that  he  does  not  vote — every  one  who  is  so  careless 
that  he  neglects  to  vote —  every  one  who  is  so  stupid  that 
he  knows  nothing  about  the  proposed, amendments — all  these 
are  carefully  counted  as  voting  "no."  The  result  is  that  it  is 
almost  impossible  to  amend  our  constitution,  and  so  we  must 
submit  to  be  governed  by  the  dead  hand  of  the  past. 

How  It  Works  in  Practice. 

At  the  election  of  1914,  eleven  amendments  were  proposed 
— some  of  them,  at  least,  of  most  vital  importance  to  the  peo- 
ple. The  first  amendment,  and  perhaps  the  most  vital  of  all, 
was  the  one  establishing  the  initiative  and  referendum.  By 
the  initiative  the  people  themselves  may  enact  statutes  or 
amend  the  constitution,  when  the  legislature  fails  to  act.  By 
the  referendum  they  can  veto  bad  laws  which  the  legislature 
may  enact. 

This  system  has  been  in  successful  operation  for  many 
years  in  Switzerland,  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand.  Recently 
it  has  been  adopted  in  about  one-third  of  the  states  in  the 
union.  All  Minnesota  cities  may  have  it  for  local  purposes 
by  adopting  a  home  rule  charter. 

The  initiative  and  referendum  amendment  received 
168,004  votes,  and  only  41,577  votes  against  it.  Yet  the  people 
are  denied  this  change  in  their  constitution,  because  of  a 
stupid,  vicious  and  unjust  provision  that  counts  every  ignorant 
and  careless  voter,  who  failed .  to  vote  at  all,  as  if  he  had 
intelligently  voted  against  it. 


26 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Amendment  No.  Three. 

This  amendment  was  intended  to  enable  the  state  to 
construct  roads,  ditches,  and  firebreaks,  in  through  and 
around  unsold  school  and  swamp  lands.  Under  the  present 
constitution  this  cannot  be  done. 

The  framers  of  the  constitution  could  not  foresee  the 
needs  of  coming  generations,  and  so  we  are  now  helpless 
even  to  adopt  so  sensible  a  provision  as  this  to  enable  us  to 
conserve  our  public  lands  and  protect  our  standing  timber  and 
the  neighboring  settlers  from  the  ravages  of  fire. 

This  amendment  received  162,951  votes.  *  The  opposing 
vote  was  47,906.  Nearly  four  to  one  favored  it,  yet  we  can't 
have  it. 

The  Recall. 

The  recall  amendment  enabling  the  people  to  recall 
objectionable  public  servants  received  139,801  votes. 
44,961  voted  "no." 

Of  the  eleven  amendments  ten  of  them  received  over- 
whelming majorities,  some  not  quite  two  to  one,  and  some 
more  than  four  to  one.  Yet  only  one  of  the  eleven  got  votes 
enough  to  carry.  And  all  this  because  our  constitution  con- 
tains such  a  stupid  and  unjust  provision  as  to  require  a 
majority  of  all  those  present  and  voting  at  the  election  to 
vote  "yes"  in  order  that  we  may  change  our  fundamental 
law. 

Why? 

It  has  not  always  been  so.  As  originally  adopted  our  con- 
stitution could  be  changed  by  a  majority  of  those  voting  on 
the  proposed  amendment.  From  the  time  Minnesota  was 
organized  as  a  state  until  1898  this  system  prevailed.  Many 
needed  changes  were  made  in  our  constitution  always  by  a 
majority  of  those  who  were  intelligent  enough  to  vote  on  the 
questions  at  issue. 

How  the   Change  Was   Made. 

It  was  during  the  legislative  session  of  1897  that  the 
change  was  made.  W.  W.  Dunn  was  at  that  time  attorney 
for  the  Hamm  Brewing  Company  of  St.  Paul,  and  was  their 
representative  in  the  legislature,  having  been  elected  on  the 
Republican  ticket  by  the  voters  of  that  part  of  the  city  near 
the  plant  of  the  brewing  company. 

Mr.  Dunn  brought  in  a  bill  proposing  to  so  amend  the 
constitution  that  thereafter  it  should  require  a  majority  of 
all  those  present  and  voting  at  the  election  to  favor  an 
amendment  before  it  could  become  a  part  of  the  fundamental 
law. 

On  the  floor  of  the  house  S.  A.  Stockwell,  a  member  from 
Minneapolis,  put  the  question  squarely  up  to  Mr.  Dunn,  as 
follows : 

"Do  the  forces  that  are  behind  this  amendment  intend  to 
put  up  the  bars  so  high  that  no  further  amendment  of  the 
constitution  will  be  possible  on  any  subject,  in  order  to  head 
off  the  possibility  of  the  passage  of  a  prohibition  amendment 
at  some  time  in  the  distant  future?" 

Mr.  Dunn  answered,  "The  gentleman  from  Hennepin  is 
correctly  informed." 

The  proposed  amendment  passed  both  House  and  Senate, 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 27 

and  was  submitted  to  the  people  at  the  election  of  1898.  The 
brewery  interests  were  united  and  alert.  The  word  was  sent 
out  to  every  saloon  in  the  state  to  get  all  the  votes  possible, 
in  a  quiet  way,  in  favor  of  the  brewer's  amendment. 

The  decent  people  of  the  state  were  caught  napping,  and 
the  amendment  was  carried.  If  the  people  could  have  been 
informed  they  would  probably  have  voted  it  down. 

The  following  facts  seem  to  warrant  this  conclusion: 

In  1898  S.  A.  Stockwell  ran  for  the  -Senate  In  the  seventh 
eleventh  and  twelfth  wards  of  Minneapolis.  The  district  was 
strongly  Republican  and  Stockwell  was  a  Democrat.  In 
every  speech  he  called  attention  to  this  amendment  and 
urged  its  defeat.  The  eleventh  and  twelfth  wards  had  many 
saloons,  the  seventh  none.  In  all  three  wards  most  of  the 
voters  were  working  men. 

Stockwell  was  not  only  elected,  but  his  district  cast  a 
good  majority  against  the  brewer's  amendment.  The  peo- 
ple can  be  trusted  to  vote  right  if  they  understand. 

CHAPTER  V. 
TAXATION. 

Next  to  the  right  of  self  government,  taxation  is  the  most 
basic  problem  that  has  ever  confronted  the  people  of  the  world. 

If  taxes  are  just  and  fair  the  people  will  be  prosperous, 
contented  and  happy. 

Gibbon  in  his  "Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire," 
declares  that  "great  estates  ruined  Rome";  and  we  know  that 
an  unjust  distribution  of  the  burden  of  taxation  was  the 
cause  of  those  "great  estates." 

"Great  estates"  have  been  the  ruin  of  every  nation  that 
has  gone  down  to  destruction  in  all  the  history  of  the  world; 
and  in  every  case  unjust  taxation  has  been  the  foundation  on 
which  these  "great  estates"  have  always  been  built. 

Theories  of  Taxation. 

There  are  two  theories  of  taxation. 

One  says  "tax  everything";  the  other  says  "tax  nothing 
that  labor  of  hand  or  brain  has  produced." 

A  man  tries  to  get  a  home.  He  takes  up  a  piece  of  land 
and  begins  to  use  it.  Tax  him. 

He  gets  a  team  of  horses  and  some  tools.    Tax  him. 

He  grubs  out  the  stumps,  and  puts  in  a  crop.     Tax  him. 

He  builds  a  cabin  to  shelter  himself  and  wife.     Tax  him. 

He  gets  a  cow  to  furnish  milk  for  his  family.     Tax  him. 

He  builds  a  fence  to  protect  his  crops,  to  keep  his  cattle 
and  horses  in  and  to  keep  other  animals  out.  Tax  him  again. 

He  needs  more  room  and  builds  a  better  house.  Double 
his  taxes  and  more. 

He  gets  a  new  stove  and  table.     Increase  his  taxes. 

He  cleans  up  his  front  yard,  plants  flowers  and  shrubs, 
and  gives  his  house  a  new  coat  of  paint.  He  is  a  bad  citizen; 
tax  him  again. 

By  this  time  he  has  been  pretty  well  robbed  of  his  earn- 
ings, and  has  to  borrow  money  to  go  on  with.  Tax  him  again 
by  means  of  taxes  on  money  and  mortgages,  notes  and  other 
'credits,  and  then  add  a  registration  tax  which  some  stupid 
people  used  to  think  the  money  lender  would  have  to  pay. 


28 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

They  are  wiser  now  and  know  that  the  money  lender  never 
pays  any  taxes  except  such  as  he  has  first  taken  out  of  the 
borrower. 

For  every  good  and  useful  thing  that  this  man  has  tried 
to  do  to  get  a  home,  to  develop  his  farm  and  earn  an  honest 
living,  tax  him,  fine  him,  penalize  him  as  if  he  were  a  crim- 
inal; and  then  wonder  why  he  can't  get  on  in  the  world. 

There  are  some  men  who  are  strong  enough  to  stand  all 
this  and  still  make  a  living;  but  many  more  could  do  far 
better  if  they  could  be  free  from  the  crushing  burden  of 
unjust  taxation. 

And  how  the  land  grabbers  and  speculators  enjoy  this 
system!  They  always  get  in  ahead  of  the  home  maker,  in 
both  country  and  city,  get  hold  of  as  much  land  as  possible, 
and  put  up  the  price  every  time  the  useful  citizen  does  any- 
thing to  improve  the  neighborhood. 

Our  system  of  taxation  could  not  do  it  more  effectively, 
if  it  had  been  deliberately  and  maliciously  designed  by  the 
Devil  himself,  to  prevent  people  from  opening  up  farms, 
getting  homes,  producing  food,  clothing  and  the  other  neces- 
sities and  comforts  of  life. 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  This  system  that  penalizes 
industry  while  it  encourages  land  grabbing  and  speculation, 
is  the  direct  cause  of  so  much  land  held  out  of  use  at  a  price 
which  industry  can  never  hope  to  pay. 

This  is  the  reason  why  the  homeseeker  is  forced  to  travel 
miles  and  miles  beyond  the  border  of  settlement  and  civiliza- 
tion to  find  land  cheap  enough  for  his  meager  purse. 

This  is  the  reason  why  pur  booming  cities  sprawl  over 
two  or  three  times  the  space  they  should,  building  sky- 
scrapers in  some  parts  where  people  live  and  work  like 
sardines  in  a  box,  and  leaving  block  after  block  empty  and 
unused  because  the  owners  find  it  more  profitable  to  hold 
idle  for  the  increase  in  value  than  to  put  it  to  use  and  pay 
the  extra  taxes. 

By  encouraging  the  vacant  lot  industry,  this  system 
enormously  increases  the  cost  of  opening  and  grading  streets, 
of  sewers  and  water  mains,  of  sidewalks  and  pavements,  of 
curbs  and  boulevards,  of  gas,  electric  and  street  car  service; 
all  of  which  must  be  carried  across  these  waste  spaces  at 
enormous  expense. 

All  these  and  many  more  are  the  evils  that  inevitably 
flow  from  the  false  theory  that  we  should  "tax  everything." 

Another  Picture. 

"Tax  nothing  that  will  come  to  you — nothing  that  your 
taxes  will  drive  away — nothing  that  labor  produces." 

The  people  of  the  three  northwestern  Canadian  provinces 
are  wiser  than  we. 

There  the  farmer  is  not  taxed  more  because  he  breaks 
the  prairie  sod  and  raises  a  crop,  or  fences  his  farm,  or  builds 
a  house  and  out  buildings,  or  buys  furniture,  or  tools  or 
cattle  or  horses.  He  is  not  fined  and  penalized  because  he 
paints  his  buildings  and  beautifies  his  surroundings. 

There  the  people  of  the  towns  and  cities  are  not  taxed 
more  because  they  build  houses  and  stores  and  factories  and 
fill  them  with  furniture  and  goods  and  machinery. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 29 

There  they  are  not  taxed  more  because  they  use  the 
land,  employ  labor,  and  produce  useful  things. 

The  man  in  the  country  with  an  improved  farm,  the  best 
of  buildings,  cattle,  horses,  machinery  and  all  the  crops  he 
can  raise,  pays  no  more  taxes  than  does  the  speculator  who 
holds  idle  and  unused  an  equally  desirable  piece  of  land. 

The  city  man  who  builds  a  store  and  fills  it  with  goods 
is  taxed  no  more  than  the  owner  across  the  corner  who  holds 
idle  and  prevents  improvement.  Goods  can  be  sold  cheaper. 

The  city  man  who  builds  a  factory  and  fills  it  with  ma- 
chinery to  make  useful  things  is  taxed  no  more  than  is  the 
owner  of  an  equally  desirable  factory  site  that  he  is  hold- 
ing for  a  higher  price.  He  can  sell  his  products  cheaper. 

The  city  home  owner  is  not  fined  because  he  has  built, 
himself  a  house  and  furnished  it  for  the  comfort  of  his 
family.  The  man  who  owns  the  vacant  lot  next  to  him  pays 
the  same  taxes  as  the  home  owner. 

The  value  of  land  is  created  by  the  people.  It  is  there 
because  the  people  are  there  doing  useful  things.  It  in- 
creases as  the  people  increase  in  number  and  develop  a 
better  civilization.  The  value  of  land  would  all  disappear 
if  the  people  should  go  away. 

What  we  call  "land  value"  is  really  a  "people  value." 
The  people  as  a  whole  create  every  dollar  of  it,  and  therefore 
in  justice  they  have  a  right  to  it. 

The  products  of  labor  are  not  like  the  value  of  land. 
They  are  not  created  by  the  people  as  a  whole,  but  by  the 
individual  efforts  ot  the  workers.  Therefore  the  public  as 
a  whole  has  no  right  to  these  products  of  labor  and  should 
not  tax  and  penalize  their  owners. 

The    Tax    Situation    in    Minnesota. 

In  1906  the  people  adopted  an  amendment  to  the  consti- 
tution, which  permits  the  legislature  to  classify  property  for 
purposes  of  taxation,  and  to  tax  different  classes  at  different 
rates.  But  probably  it  cannot  exempt  any  class  entirely. 

Under  this  provision  laws  have  been  enacted  taxing 
money  and  credits  at  three  mills  on  the  dollar  and  substi- 
tuting for  the  tax  on  mortgages  a  fee  for  the  registration 
of  fifteen  cents  for  each  one  hundred  dollars. 

This  is  an  improvement  over  the  old  system;  but  why 
tax  borrowers  at  all? — for  it  is  the  borrower  who  must  pay 
all  such  taxes. 

In  1913  Mr.  .Spooner  introduced  a  bill  to  classify  property 
for  purposes  of  taxation.  This  bill  was  amended  in  several 
particulars  and  finally  became  the  law. 

It  contained  two  good  features. 

First,  it  taxed  iron  ore,  mined  or  unmined,  at  a  higher 
rate  than  any  other  property. 

Second,  it  taxed  household  furniture  at  only  twenty-five 
per  cent  of  its  full  and  true  value.  This  let  out  many  poor 
people  from  the  visits  of  the  assessor. 

The  bill  was  bad  in  two  particulars: 

First,  it  attempted  to  class  land  as  platted  and  unplatted 
and  taxed  the  platted  at  forty  per  cent  and  the  unplatted  at 
thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent  of  full  and  true  value. 


30 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

This  looks  like  a  wholly  unwarranted  distinction,  and 
one  of  very  doubtful  constitutionality. 

Why  should  a  man  be  taxed  more  heavily  simply  because 
he  has  platted  his  land  and  thus  taken  the  first  step  toward 
making  it  useful  for  homes  and  business? 

Why  should  a  man  be  taxed  less  because  he  refuses  to 
plat  his  land  and  bring  it  into  the  market,  but  holds  on 'to 
get  the  increase  in  value  that  will  come  to  him  because 
of  the  building  up  and  improvement  of  the  surrounding  lots? 

In  all  the  large  cities  of  the  state  there  are  very  valuable 
tracts  of  land  left  unplatted. 

In  all  such  cases  these  lands  and  the  improvements  on 
them  are  let  off  at  thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent,  while 
the  surrounding  platted  lots  with  the  homes  and  business 
buildings  on  them  are  rated  at  forty  per  cent. 

There  is  one  house  on  Summit  Avenue,  St.  Paul,  worth 
over  $40,000  on  a  piece  of  unplatted  land  worth  many  thou- 
sands more,  and  all  this  goes  in  at  thirty-three  and  one-third 
per  cent,  while  the  people  who  own  the  homes  all  around 
are  taxed  at  forty  per  cent. 

This  is  only  one  case.  There  are  many  more  in  all  the 
cities  of  the  state  like  this. 

Any  law  that  permits  such  injustice  ought  to  be  amended. 

But  the  second  defect  in  this  law  makes  it  more  unjust 
still.  It  makes  no  distinction  between  land  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  products  of  labor  on  the  other.  Here  is  a  natural 
line  of  demonstration  and  one  that  the  county  boards,  audi- 
tors and  assessors  have  been  making  ever  since  the  state 
was  organized. 

Everywhere  and  always  the  tax  officials  have  assessed 
buildings  and  improvements  and  all  kinds  of  personal  prop- 
erty at  a  much  lower  rate  than  land. 

This  new  law  as  introduced  by  Mr.  Spooner  and  as 
finally  passed  removes  this  distinction  and  provides  that 
the  buildings  and  improvements  must  be  taxed  at  the  same 
rate  as  land. 

Under  this  law  the  taxes  on  buildings  and  improvements 
have  been  increased  in  all  parts  of  the  state,  and  in  St.  Paul 
we  were  forced  to  add  about  $20,000,000  to  their  valuation, 
while  the  lands  of  the  city  were  only  increased  about  one 
million.  Most  of  this  increase  on  buildings  will  fall  on  homes 
and  business  structures. 

It  works  well  for  the  land  speculators,  but  is  hard  on 
the  home  owners  and  business  men,  and  these  are  the  ones 
that  Mr.  Spooner  and  the  legislators  claimed  to  be  helping. 

They  made  a  bad  bungle  of  it  which  the  next  legislature 
ought  to  correct. 

S.  R.  Child  and  C.  H.  Warner  were  the  only  House  mem- 
bers to  vote  against  the  Spooner  bill. 

In  the  Senate  the  bill  was  amended  and  passed  with  only 
ten  votes  against  it. 

And  thus  was  placed  on  the  statute  books  a  law  so 
framed  as  to  do  great  injustice  where  it  was  intended  to 
correct  injustice. 

Taxation  in  the  1915  Legislature. 

During   the   session   of   1915,   Jones   in   the   Senate,   and 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 31 

Marwin,  Indrehus,  Anton  Peterson,  L.  O.  Teigen,  Welch, 
Vasaly  and  Woodfill  in  the  House,  introduced  a  bill  to  amend 
the  tax  classification  law  so  as  to  reduce  household  goods 
to  one  per  cent,  all  buildings,  structures  and  improvements 
in  or  upon  land  to  ten  per  cent,  all  personal  property  now 
in  class  three  to  ten  per  cent,  and  put  all  land  in  one  class 
at  forty  per  cent. 

Mr.  Searls  brought  in  a  bill  to  tax  improved  unplatted 
real  estate  at  a  lower  rate  than  unimproved.  The  principle 
of  this  bill  met  with  popular  approval,  but  its  doubtful  con- 
stitutionality and  the  practical  difficulty  of  defining  the  amount 
of  improvement  necessary  to  secure  the  lower  rate  caused  its 
advocates  to  abandon  it. 

These  bills  were  reported  unfavorably  by  the  tax  com- 
mittee of  each  house.  But  something  along  this  line  is  sure 
to  be  considered  favorably  before  many  years.  Public  senti- 
ment is  drifting  strongly  in  this  direction,  and  the  legislature 
will  respond. 

Later  Indrehus  and  Gordon  introduced  a  resolution,  di- 
recting the  tax  commission  to  investigate  the  working  of  the 
present  system  and  report  their  findings  with  recommenda- 
tions for  relief  to  the  next  legislature.  Mr.  Spooner  brought 
in  a  bill  reducing  taxes  on  buildings  to  twenty-five  per  cent. 
Spooner's  bill  was  indefinitely  postponed,  and  the  resolution 
died  on  general  orders  along  with  about  two  hundred  other 
measures. 

Gross    Earnings   Taxes. 

>  Public  service  corporations  have  but  one  source  of  in- 
come— what  they  collect  from  their  patrons.  It  therefore 
follows  that  the  greater  burdens  of  taxation  we  put  upon 
them  the  higher  their  charges  must  be. 

The  St.  Paul  Gas  Light  company  pays  a  five  per  cent 
gross  earnings  tax,  and  they  are  allowed  to  charge  five 
cents  a  thousand  more  for  gas.  Plainly  this  is  not  a  tax  on 
the  company,  but  a  tax  on  the  users  of  gas.  It  amounts  to 
a  five  and  one-half  per  cent  tax  on  every  dollar's  worth  of 
gas  consumed.  The  company  gets  it  all  back  out  of  the 
consumers  and  makes  a  good  profit  besides. 

A  large  part  of  the  state  revenue  is  collected  by  a  system 
of  gross  earnings  taxes  from  the  railways  and  other  public 
service  corporations. 

Of  course  the  charge  of  these  companies  must  be  enough 
more  to  cover  all  such  taxes  and  a  good  margin  besides. 

So  far  as  the  earnings  of  the  railways  come  from  the 
handling  of  grain  and  other  farm  products,  all  taxes  on  these 
earnings  are  taxes  on  the  farmers  of  .Minnesota. 

So  far  as  railway  earnings  are  derived  from  merchandise 
brought  into  the  state,  the  taxes  on  such  earnings  are  paid 
by  the  final  consumers,  with  a  good  profit  on  the  tax,  not 
only  to  the  railways,  but  to  every  jobber,  wholesaler  and 
retailer  who  handles  the  goods. 

Gross  earnings  taxes  are  not  taxes  on  these  corporations, 
but  taxes  on  the  people.  It  is  time  the  people  stopped  fool- 
ing themselves  with  the  idea  that  they  are  getting  any  taxes 
out  of  the  railways  and  these  other  corporations  by  this 
system. 


32 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Of  course  if  we  had  no  control  over  their  charges,  then 
any  such  taxes  would  be  clear  gain;  but  we  do  have  control 
over  their  charges,  and  so  the  whole  system  fails  of  its 
object  and  taxes  the  wrong  people.  More  than,  this  it  taxes 
them  far  more  heavily  than  if  the  same  amount  were  raised 
by  direct  taxation. 

There  is  another  bad  feature  of  this  system  that  is 
usually  overlooked.  In  every  city  and  village  in  the  state 
all  kinds  of  street  improvements — grading,  paving,  sewer, 
water  mains,  sidewalks,  etc. — are  paid  for  by  special  assess- 
ment against  the  owner  of  the  abutting  property.  The  rail- 
ways escape  all  this.  They  also  escape  all  taxes  on  their 
valuable  terminal  lands,  and  even  on  the  lands  that  were 
freely  given  them  by  the  state  and  the  nation  to  encourage 
the  building  of  the  roads. 

Exemption  from  these  land  taxes  and  special  assess- 
ments is  just  so  much  clear  gain  to  the  corporations. 

The  gross  earnings  system  is  a  very  successful  method 
of  letting  the  corporations  off  with  no  taxes  at  all,  and  putting 
a  double  burden  on  the  patrons  of  the  companies  and  the 
consuming  public. 

In  the  session  of  1915,  Mr.  Gilman  introduced  a  resolution 
for  a  committee  to  investigate  the  whole  gross  earnings  sys- 
tem and  report  to  the  next  session;  but  he  did  not  push  it 
and  it  never  came  to  a  vote. 

Natural   Sources  of   Revenue. 

The  state  of  Minnesota  was  wonderfully  rich  in  natural 
resources.  Its  mines  and  forests  and  water  power  were  among 
the  greatest  in  the  world.  Its  soil  the  most  fertile,  and  its 
locations  for  great  and  powerful  cities  the  most  desirable. 

The  forests  are  largely  cut  off — gone  forever — and  we 
have  a  few  millionaire  lumber  barons  as  the  net  result. 

The  minerals  are  fast  going  and  we  are  not  getting  half 
what  we  should.  If  we  could  devise  a  system  of  taxes  that 
would  reach  the  royalties  that  now  swell  the  fortunes  of 
the  mine  owners,  we  would  have  tapped  a  source  of  vast 
public  revenue.  This  should  be  done  without  delay, — not 
by  a  tonnage  tax  on  the  output  of  the  mines,  but  by  a  very 
heavy  tax  on  the  royalties  now  paid  to  the  fee  owners.  Such 
a  tax  could  not  be  passed  on,  but  must  be  paid  by  the  mine 
owners  themselves. 

The  enormous  value  of  our  water  power  and  the  fabulous 
wealth  in  our  city  lands  and  lots  could  be  made  to  yield 
much  larger  revenues  to  the  state  if  we  would  cease  taxing 
industry  and  increase  the  taxes  on  the  value  of  these  lands. 

As  every  one  knows,  these  values  are  created  by  all  the 
people,  and  so  far  as  justice  and  fair  play  are  concerned,  the 
whole  people  ought  to  have  them  to  meet  public  needs,  in- 
stead of  permitting  them  to  swell  the  fortunes  of  land 
grabbers  and  speculators. 

The  man  who  owns  the  title  deed  to  an  iron  mine,  or 
a  city  lot,  or  a  water  power,  or  to  any  other  part  of  Nature's 
free  gift  to  the  children  of  men,  has  no  moral  nor  legal  right 
to  these  values  that  are  not  due  to  his  efforts,  but  are  due 
to  the  presence  and  energy,  the  civilization  and  moral  status 
of  the  whole  people. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    o/,   1915 33 

The  people  always  have  the  moral  right  to  change  their 
system  of  taxation;  and  when  they  shall  decide  to  stop 
fining  and  penalizing  themselves  for  their  thrift  and  in- 
dustry, and  to  take  for  public  use  these  publicly-created 
values,  there  will  not  be  so  many  useless  millionaires  in  the 
world;  but  there  will  be  more  useful  citizens  who  can  afford 
to  have  decent  homes  and  comfortable  surroundings. 
Unemployment,  Wage  Regulation  and  Taxation. 

There  is  just  one  natural  source  of  employment  in  any 
community,  namely,  the  land,  the  resources  of  nature  in 
that  community.  If  the  land  is  easy  to  get  for  use  people 
will  make  farms  and  gardens  on  it  and  employ  labor.  They 
will  erect  factories,  warehouses  and  stores  on  it  and  employ 
labor.  They  will  build  homes  on  it  and  employ  labor.  In 
fact,  no  matter  to  what  use  the  land  is  put  labor  must  be 
employed.  You  can't  use  land  without  employing  labor. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  land  is  hard  to  get — if  the  burden 
is  so  heavy  that  people  cannot  afford  to  put  it  to  use — then 
labor  will  not  be  employed.  It  will  walk  the  street  vainly 
looking  for  a  job.  Every  idle  lot  means  idle  men.  If  all  the 
land  were  held  idle,  all  the  people  would  necessarily  be  idle 
and  would  soon  starve  to  death. 

Now,  what  has  taxation  to  do  with  all  this?  Everything! 
Everything!  Our  present  system  of  taxation  lets  a  man  off 
easy  so  long  as  he  holds  his  land  idle  and  thus  keeps  labor 
off  of  it.  The  moment  he  starts  to  make  his  land  useful  and 
sets  labor  to  work — he  can't  use  his  land  without  setting  labor 
to  work — that  moment  we  begin  to  pile  the  taxes  on  him  as 
if  he  were  a  criminal  to  be  fined  and  penalized. 

To  illustrate: 

A  certain  enterprising  firm  of  St.  Paul  has  erected  on 
University  avenue  a  beautiful,  commodious  building — a  gem 
of  art  and  convenience — heated,  lighted  and  ventilated  in  the 
most  up-to-date  fashion.  Here,  in  the  midst  of  beautiful  sur- 
roundings, in  fresh  air  and  sunshine,  they  employ  about  750 
people,  mostly  young  men  and  women,  making  useful  things, 
which  are  sold  in  all  parts  of  the  civilized  world.  Because 
they  are  doing  this,  because  they  have  erected  this  beautiful 
building,  assembled  here  the  machinery  and  materials  of  in- 
dustry, brought  here  these  750  people  and  set  them  to  work, 
the  tax  laws  of  the  state  of  Minnesota  compel  us  to  impose 
on  them  every  year  a  fine  of  over  $2,000  on  the  building  and 
an  additional  fine  of  more  than  $3,000  on  their  machinery, 
money  and  credits  and  on  the  raw  material  and  finished 
products  of  their  industry.  This  is  in  addition  to  the  taxes 
they  pay  on  their  land.  This  is  the  fine  that  we,  impose  upon 
them  because  they  are  making  their  land  useful  and  em- 
ploying labor  on  it,  instead  of  holding  it  idle  and  keeping 
labor  off  it. 

And  this  is  only  one  case  in  many  thousands  in  the  city 
of  St.  Paul  alone.  Every  city,  town  and  village,  every  farm 
and  mine  and  industry,  in  the  whole  country  is  another  case 
of  the  same  kind.  Everywhere  we  fine  and  penalize  men 
because  they  put  their  land  to  use  and  employ  labor  on  it. 
Everywhere  we  let  men  off  easy  because  they  hold  their  land 
idle  and  keep  labor  off  it.  And  then  we  stand  in  amazement 


34 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

and  wonder  why  workers  are  idle  and  wages  low.  Could 
anything  be  more  stupid?  Yes,  and  we  do  it. 

We  could  make  a  simple  change  in  our  system  of  taxa- 
tion. We  could  stop  fining  people  for  using  their  land  and 
employing  labor,  but  we  don't.  We  could  increase  the  taxes 
on  those  who  held  their  land  idle  and  prevent  labor  from 
working,  but  we  don't. 

Instead  of  this  we  establish  charities,  and  woodyards, 
and  souphouses  for  those  that  we  prevent  from  working  and 
earning  their  own  living.  Instead  of  this  we  pass  minimum 
wage  laws  and  other  meddlesome  regulations  to  compel  em- 
ployers to  pay  higher  wages  than  the  market  price,  stupidly 
failing  to  see  that  low  wages  are  the  direct  result  of  idle  land 
and  industry  overburdened  by  taxation. 

If  we  should  relieve  this  enterprising  firm  of  the  annual 
fine  of  more  than  $5,000,  now  imposed  upon  them,  because 
they  are  using  their  land  and  employing  labor — if  we  should 
relieve  all  industry  from  the  burden  of  taxation — and  increase 
the  taxes  on  the  forestallers  and  land  grabbers,  don't  you  sup- 
pose wages  would  rise  all  along  the  line,  far  more  than  you 
can  ever  force  them  up  by  minimum  wage  laws?  And 
wouldn't  wages  keep  on  going  up  and  stay  up  just  as  we  made 
it  easy  to  put  land  to  use  and  employ  labor,  instead  of  making 
it  easy  to  hold  land  idle  and  keep  labor  out  of  work? 

How  long  would  it  be  till  there  were  two  jobs  looking 
for  each  man  and  woman,  instead  of  two  or  more  workers 
looking  for  each  job? 

Nor  can  we  be  charged  with  trying  to  create  jobs  by  law. 
We  are  only  asking  for  the  repeal  of  the  laws  that  lock  up 
the  natural  opportunities — the  laws  that  shut  workers  away 
from  the  land  in  country  and  city,  in  forest  and  mine  and 
everywhere. 

Instead  of  fining  and  penalizing  those  who  put  their  land 
to  use  and  thus  employ  labor,  repeal  these  unwise  and  unjust 
tax  laws.  Take  the  padlock  off  the  door  that  leads  to  op- 
portunity and  give  enterprise  and  labor  a  chance. 

Require  the  forestallers  and  speculators  to  pay  to  the 
public  in  taxes  the  value  that  the  public  creates,  and  there 
will  no  longer  be  profit  in  land  grabbing. 

It  will  pay  them  to  use  the  earth  rather  than  to  hold 
it  idle. 

Labor  can  then  take  care  of  itself.  Meddlesome  legisla- 
tion in  the  interest  of  labor  will  no  longer  be  needed. 

Employers  and  worker  will  both  be  free,  and  both  will 
be  far  better  off. 

Even  the  public  service  corporations  and  the  other  great 
employers  of  labor  will  be  powerless  to  enslave  the  workers. 

Tax  out  the  land  grabbers  in  country  and  city,  and  labor 
will  take  care  of  itself. 

CHAPTER  VI. 
PUBLIC  SERVICE  CORPORATIONS. 

A  public  service  corporation  is  vitally  different  from  an 
ordinary  business.  It  is  even  different  from  an  ordinary  cor- 
poration that  is  engaged  in  competitive  business. 

We   have   individuals,   co-partnerships,   joint   stock   com- 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 35 

panics,  industrial  corporations  and  co-operative  associations 
all  engaged  in  ordinary  competitive  occupations  like  operating 
stores,  manufacturing  plants,  creameries,  farms,  insurance 
companies,  newspapers,  and  hundreds  of  other  lines  of  busi- 
ness which  are  not  in  their  nature  monopolies. 

All  these  compete  in  the  open  markets  for  business  and 
their,  success  depends  upon  the  efficiency  of  their  manage- 
ment, the  quality  and  price  of  the  articles  they  furnish  and 
the  general  satisfaction  they  give  to  their  customers. 

No  one  is  forced  to  deal  with  them  if  he  does  not  wish 
to  do  so.  Their  customers  are  free  at  all  times  to  leave 
them  and  go  somewhere  else.  For  these  reasons  such  lines 
of  business  need  no  special  regulation  by  the  government. 
The  natural  principles  of  free  competition  are  usually  quite 
sufficient.  The  best  way  to  treat  such  lines  of  business  is 
to  let  them  alone. 

Public  service  corporations  are  wholly  different.  They 
owe  their  very  existence  to  a  grant  of  public  authority.  They 
are  the  creatures  of  statute  law.  Without  a  grant  from  gov- 
ernment they  could  not  exist  at  all.  In  short  they  are 
created  to  perform  public  functions.  They  do  things  that 
the  government  itself  would  be  obliged  to  do  if  these  public 
functions  were  not  turned  over  to  them. 

It  therefore  follows  that  all  these  public  service  cor- 
porations must  at  all  times  be  subjected  to  public  control, 
and  the  courts  have  always  held  that  any  reasonable  regula- 
tions relating  to  such  corporation  will  be  sustained,  and  the 
corporations  must  obey. 

Many  people  do  not  believe  that  such  corporations  should 
be  created.  They  believe  that  all  public  business,  including 
all  kinds  of  public  service,  should  be  performed  by  the 
people  thru  their  chosen  agents;  and  not  farmed  out  to  cor- 
porations at  all. 

But  that  is  another  question. 

We  have  created  these  corporations,  and  we  have  turned 
over  to  them  our  railways,  tetegraphs,  telephones,  street  car 
systems,  gas,  electricity,  and,  in  many  cities  even  the  water 
supply  systems. 

The  problem  now  is  how  shall  these  corporations  be 
controlled — to  what  extent  shall  they  be  brought  under  public 
regulation? 

The   Telephone    Bill. 

For  many  years  we  have  had  the  railway  and  warehouse 
commission  whose  business  it  has  been  to  control  and  regu- 
late the  railways  and  public  warehouses  of  the  state. 

But  the  telephone  companies  that  operate  in  all  parts 
of  the  state  have  been  a  law  unto  themselves.  There  has 
been  no  legal  provision  for  their  control,  and  the  North- 
western Telephone  monopoly  especially  has  most  vigorously 
resented  all  attempts  to  bring  it  under  the  control  of  the 
railway  and  warehouse  commission. 

The  rural  telephone  companies  and  their  patrons  are 
subsidiary  to  the  two  great  companies,  the  Northwestrn  and 
the  Tri-State;  and  for  many  years  these  small  companies 
and  their  subscribers  have  demanded  that  the  whole  tele- 
phone system  of  the  state  be  put  under  the  control  of  the 
railway  and  warehouse  commission,  and  that  the  large  com- 


36 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

panies  be  required  to  make  physical  connection  so  that  the 
subscribers  of  the  subsidiary  lines  of  one  large  company 
could  talk  with  the  subscribers  to  the  other  line  or  its 
subsidiaries. 

As  early  as  1907,  J.  T.  Johnson  of  Fergus  Falls,  intro- 
duced a  bill  to  bring  about  these  results,  but  it  was  smothered 
in  committee. 

In  1909  Mr.  Johnson  introduced  another  bill  with  the 
same  result. 

In  1911  F.  E.  Minnette  introduced  a  bill  to  the  same 
effect,  but  it  failed  to  pass. 

In  1913  Minnette  and  Holmberg  came  in  with  a  bill 
which  passed  both  House  and  Senate  by  very  large  ma- 
jorities, but  was  vetoed  by  Governor  Eberhardt,  as  a  part 
of  his  plan  to  force  upon  the  state  his  scheme  for  a  state- 
wide public  utility  commission  to  regulate  and  control  all 
public  utilities  in  the  state — those  belonging  wholly  within 
the  cities  as  well  as  all  others. 

This  veto  aroused  a  furore  of  opposition  and  was  one 
of  the  chief  causes  of  Eberhardt's  defeat  at  the  primaries 
in  June,  1914. 

Early  in  the  session  of  1915  Minnette  and  Burrows  in- 
troduced the  same  bill  again,  and  after  full  discussion  it 
passed  the  House  without  a  dissenting  vote. 

As  thus  passed  it  contained  a  clause,  permitting  the 
people  of  any  community,  by  a  65  per  cent  vote,  to  let  in 
a  second  telephone  system. 

If  a  second  exchange  is  to  be  established  at  all,  a  vote 
of  the  people  who  are  interested  is  the  best  and  most  demo- 
cratic way  to  do  it. 

But  is  this  the  best  way  to  remedy  a  poor  service? 

Can  competition  solve  this  problem?  Is  competition 
possible  in  regard  to  public  service,  as  it  is  in  the  matter 
of  groceries,  carpenter  shops,  or  any  other  private  business? 

Is  not  the  telephone  business,  like  all  public  service,  a 
necessary  monopoly?  And  it  such  a  monopoly  is  in  the 
hands  of  a  private  corporation,  is  it  not  the  wisest  and  best 
course — is  it  not  the  only  practical  course — to  require  the 
first  company  to  give  good  service  at  a  reasonable  price? 
or  get  out  entirely? 

The  Senate  committee  on  corporations  cut  out  this  refer- 
endum clause,  and  after  a  very  thoro  discussion  the  action 
of  the  committee  was  sustained. 

Senator  Lobeck  showed  that  only  a  small  part  of  the 
users  of  phones  in  the  rural  parts  of  the  state  lived  inside 
the  villages  and  cities  where  the  exchanges  are  located; 
and  hence  to  refer  the  question  of  a  second  exchange  to  all 
the  voters  of  such  cities  and  villages  whether  they  were 
users  of  phones  or  not,  would  not  be  a  true  referendum. 
It  would  refer  the  question  to  the  wrong  people. 

This  argument  seemed  conclusive,  for  only  one,  Ward 
of  Fairmont,  voted  against  the  bill  on  final  passage. 

Mr.  Minnette  made  a  strong  plea  to  have  the  referendum 
clause  restored,  but  the  conference  committee  sustained  the 
action  of  the  Senate,  and  the  House  concurred. 

Thus  ended  the  long  struggle  with  a  popular  victory 
over  the  great  Northwestern  Telephone  monopoly. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


37 


The   Nolan   Bill. 

For  a  number  of  years  the  Minneapolis  General  Electric 
Company  has  been  operating  without  a  franchise,  and  has 
been  charging  all  the  traffic  would  bear. 

The  city  of  Minneapolis  is  not  operating  under  a  home 
rule  charter  and  therefore  has  no  power  to  regulate  this 
company  in  any  way  whatever. 

In  1913  W.  J.  Nolan  of  Minneapolis  introduced  into  the 
House  a  very  short  and  simple  bill  granting  to  the  govern- 
ing body  of  every  city  or  village  in  the  state  "the  right  and 
power  to  prescribe  and  limit  the  charges  which  any  (public 
utility)  corporation  may  demand  or  receive  for  the  commodi- 
ties or  services  furnished  by  it." 

The  people  of  Minneapolis  were  eager  for  this  bill,  and 
the  manufacturers  and  merchants  thru  their  association  were 
very  active  in  its  support.  • 

This  bill  passed  the  House  without  a  dissenting  vote, 
and  only  four  in  the  Senate  really  opposed  it,  W.  W.  Dunn, 
Murray,  G.  H.  Sullivan  and  J.  D.  Sullivan. 

Then  Governor  Eberhardt  vetoed  it.  The  House  passed 
it  over  his  veto  83  to  26,  but  the  corporations  had  too  strong 
a  grip  in  the  Senate  and  so  they  and  the  Governor  won  the 
day  and  the  bill  was  killed. 

Senator  Dwinnell  had  led  the  fight  in  the  Senate  in  favor 
of  this  bill;  but  for  some  reason,  very  early  in  the  session 
of  1915,  Senator  William  A.  Campbell  introduced  the  bill  as 
Senate  File  No.  20. 

Now  Campbell  is  very  unpopular  with  the  stand-patters 
and  the  corporation  men  in  the  Senate. 

The  first  move  was  to  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  apply 
to  Minneapolis  only,  and  then  the  Senators  from  Hennepin 
county  voted  five  to  four  for  indefinite  postponement.  Those 
voting  against  the  bill  were  Callahan,  Grose,  Pauly,  Wallace 
and  Westlake.  Those  for  the  bill  were  Campbell,  Dwinnell, 
Palmer  and  Turnham. 

Later,  on  April  10,  the  Senate  supported  the  majority 
of  the  Hennepin  delegation  and  killed  the  bill  by  the  fol- 
lowing vote,  32  to  16. 


Those  voting 

to  kill  the  bill  were: 

Adams 

Grose 

Ries 

Andrews 

Handlan 

Steffen 

Callahan 

Hegnes 

Sullivan,  G. 

H. 

Campbell,  A.   S. 

Hilbert 

Sullivan,   J. 

D. 

Carley 

Knopp 

Van  Hoven 

Denegre 

McGarry 

Vibert 

Dunn,  W.  W. 

Nord 

Wallace 

Duxbury 

Orr 

Ward 

Gjerset 

Pauly 

Weis 

Glotzbach 

Peterson,  G.  M. 

Westlake 

Griggs 

Putnam 

Those  viting 

to  save  the  bill  were: 

Campbell,  W.  A. 

Jones 

Rystrom 

Dwinnell 

Lobeck 

Sageng 

Gardner 

Nelson 

Turnham 

Gillam 

O'Neill 

Vermilya 

Hanson 

Palmer 

Holmberg 

Peterson,   E.    P. 

38     . 

The    Minnesota    Legislature 

of    1915 

Nineteen  -Senators   did   not  vote: 
Alley                             Dunn,  R.  C. 
Baldwin                       Gandrud 
Benson                         Healy 
Blomgren                     Jackson 
Bonniwell                     Johnston 
Buckler                       Lende 
Collester                      Millett 

Peterson,   F.   H. 
Potter 
Rockne 
Rustad 
Swenson 

Five  were  not  present — Baldwin,  Collester,  Healy,  Millett 
and  F.  H.  Peterson.  The  other  fourteen  refused  to  vote  at 
all,  regarding  it  a  local  quarrel. 

Why  was  this  bill  killed? 

Was  it  not  as  correct  in  principle  in  1915  as  it  was 
in  1913? 

Were  not  the  great  mass  of  consumers  just  as  much 
in  need  of  relief  from  the  exactions  of  this  company  as  they 
had  been  two  years  before? 

Perhaps  the  common  mass  of  consumers  are  not  paying 
quite  as  much  as  formerly;  but  the  merchants  and  manu- 
•  facturers  have  got  such  rates  as  they  wanted,  and  so  their 
zeal  for  the  bill  had  largely  died  out. 

The  common  people  had  no  one  to  plead  their  cause  but 
the  men  they  had  elected  and  sent  to  the  Senate,  and  five  of 
these  did  not  seem  to  feel  it  necessary  to  represent  the  voters. 

Semi-Monthly  Pay   Day  Bill. 

This  bill  required  all  public  service  corporations  to  pay 
their  employees  at  least  twice  a  month. 

What  could  be  more  fair  than  this?  The  men  have 
earned  the  money.  It  is  theirs.  Why  should  the  public  ser- 
vice corporations  be  permitted  to  exact  forced  loans  from  their 
hired  men?  Even  the  semi-monthly  pay  day  leaves  a  large 
amount  of  wages  in  the  hands  of  the  employers.  Even  then 
they  would  have  in  their  possession  at  all  times  about  three 
weeks  wages,  rightfully  belonging  to  each  man  in  their 
employ. 

Suppose  one  of  these  corporations  employed  a  thousand 
men.  Their  wages  would  average  at  least  seventy-five  dollars 
a  month.  Here's  a  capital  of  about  $75,000  that  the  men 
are  forced  to  furnish  to  their  employers  without  interest. 

The  bill  passed  the  House  89  to  33  as  follows: 
Anderson  Dare  Hulbert 

Baker  Davis  Johnson,  M. 

Barten  Devoid  Kneeland 

Bendixen  Dunleavy  Knutson 

Bernard  Dwyer  Kuntz 

Bessette  Erickson  Larimore 

Bjorge  Frye  Larson 

Bjorklund  Gill  Lattin 

Boehmke  Girling  Lee 

Borgen  Grant  Lennon 

Bouck  Greene  Lydiard 

Boyd  Guilford  McGrath 

Brown  Haislet  McLaughlin 

Burrows  Harrison,  J.   M.         Madigan 

Christiansen  Hynes,  J.  H.  Malmberg 

Condon  Holmes 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915  39 


Marschalk 

Pendergast 

Stevens 

Marwin 

Peterson,   A. 

•Stoetzel 

Minnette 

Pikop 

Sudheimer 

Moeller 

Pless 

Swanson 

Mojrken 

Putnam 

Syverson 

Mueller 

Ribenack 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Murphy 

Rodenberg 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Nelson 

Sawyer 

Thornton 

Nimocks 

Seebach 

Vasaly 

Nordgren 

Scott 

Welch 

Norton 

Sliter 

Weld 

Novak 

Sorflaten 

Wilson 

Olien 

Steen 

Wold 

Papke 

Stenvick 

Woodfill 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Adams  Hauser  Sanborn 

Bjornson  Hogenson  Searls 

Carmichael  Hompe  Schrooten 

Corning  Indrehus  Smith 

Dealand  Johnson,  J.   T.  Southwick 

Ferrier  Leonard  Spooner 

Flinn  Miner  Swenson 

Gerlich  Nietzel  Thompson,  A.  L. 

Oilman  Parker  Tollef  son 

Hafften  Peterson,  A.  M.         Wefald 

Harrison,  H.  H.         Pratt  Wilkins 

The  public  service  corporations  now  got  busy  in  the 
Senate.  Petitions  were  circulated  among  the  railway  em- 
ployes urging  Senators  to  vote  against  the  bill,  and  many 
who  could  not  be  charged  with  having  corporation  leanings 
were  convinced  that  the  working  men  actually  did  not  want 
their  pay  oftener  than  once  a  month. 

Several  men  in  Senator  Gandrud's  district  told  him  they 
were  afraid  it  would  be  taken  out  of  them  if  the  railway 
companies  should  be  put  to  the  extra  expense  that  a  semi- 
monthly pay  day  would  make  necessary;  and  it  is  probable 
that  other  Senators  were  influenced  by  the  same  kind  of 
argument. 

But  it  was  perfectly  plain  where  the  corporation  men 
in  the  Senate  stood.  Those  who  can  always  be  found  on  the 
side  of  the  special  interests  were  strong  and  strenuous  against 
the  bill. 

The  most  convincing  speech  for  the  bill  was  made  by 
Senator  Dwinnell  of  Minneapolis,  who  declared  it  absurd 
to  suppose  that  any  considerable  number  of  working  men 
did  not  want  the  money  they  had  earned.  He  showed  that 
it  would  not  place  any  considerable  burden  upon  the  cor- 
porations, but  even  if  it  did  they  ought  to  meet  it  like  men, 
and  not  try  to  make  their  employees  furnish  them  with 
capital  on  which  to  do  business.  Even  as  it  is  the  com- 
panies retain  all  the  time  fifteen  to  thirty  days'  wages  that 
they  have  no  right  to. 

Others  who  made  strong  pleas  for  justice  to  the 
men  were  Campbell  of  Minneapolis,  Jackson,  Palmer,  Pauly, 
Griggs,  Handlan,  Jones  and  Gardner,  who  had  fathered  the 
bill  and  who  had  worked  for  it  as  if  his  life  depended  on 
its  passage. 


40  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

The  opposition  to  the  bill  in  both  Senate  and  House 
may  be  summed  up  about  as  follows: 

First,  there  were  those  who  are  always  found  on  the 
side  of  the  corporations. 

Second,  the  fact  that  most  of  the  leading  supporters  of 
the  bill  had  been  very  bitter  opponents  of  county  option, 
caused  the  temperance  people  to  look  on  the  bill  from  the 
start  with  some  prejudice. 

Third,  the  fear  that  the  railways  would  take  it  out  of  their 
workmen,  caused  many  of  the  better  paid  employees  to 
oppose  the  bill  in  a  mild  way,  or  at  any  rate  not  to  be  very 
zealous  in  its  support.  This  had  its  influence  especially  on 
some  country  members. 

Fourth,  several  members  felt  that  the  extra  expense 
would  give  the  railways  an  added  excuse  to  ask  for  in- 
creased freight  rates. 

And  finally  there  were  a  number  of  temperance  men 
who  were  quite  sure  that  two  pay  days  a  month  would  mean 
two  drunks  a  month,  and  would  not  be  for  the  best  interest 
of  even  those  of  the  men  who  most  needed  their  money. 

The  fault  is  not  with  the  workers,  but  with  the  system. 
Change  the  system.  Do  away  with  privileges  and  the  work- 
ers will  be  independent  and  self-respecting.  They  will  need 
no  guardians. 

The  bill  had  not  a  vote  to  spare  in  the  Senate. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Adams  Grose  Peterson,   E.   P. 

Alley  Handlan  Peterson,  F.   H. 

Benson  Hanson  Peterson,   G.   M. 

Bonniwell  Jackson  Rockne 

Buckler  Johnston  Sageng 

Callahan  Jones  Steffen 

Campbell,  A.  S.          Knopp  Turnham 

Campbell,  W.   A.       Lobeck  Van  Hoven 

Dunn,  W.  W.  McGarry  Vermilya 

Dwinnell  O'Neill  Ward 

Gardner  Palmer 

Griggs  Pauly 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Andrews  Glotzbach  Ries 

Baldwin  Healy    '  Rustad 

Blomgren  Hegnes  Rystrom 

Carley  Hilbert  Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Collester  Holmberg  Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Denegre  Millett  Swenson 

Dunn,  R.  C.  Nelson  Vibert 

Duxbury  Orr  Wallace 

Gandrud  Potter  Weis 

Gjerset  Putnam  Westlake 

Gillam,  Lende  and  Nord  were  unavoidably  absent. 

It  has  been  a  battle  of  many  years,  but  at  last  the  men 
have  won. 

The   Twin    City    Rapid    Transit    Company — Its    Blunder 

And    Its  Success. 

In  about  eight  years  the  franchises  of  the  Twin  City 
Rapid  Transit  Company  will  expire. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 41 

When  that  times  comes  the  people  of  the  two  great 
cities  will  have  a  chance  to  make  a  new  deal  and  a  fairer  one. 

The  company  is  in  a  hurry.  They  don't  want  to  wait. 
Times  are  changing.  The  people  are  getting  wiser.  The 
public  ownership  movement  is  growing  very  rapidly. 

Early  in  the  session  this  company,  thru  certain  mem- 
bers of  the  -St.  Paul  Association  of  Commerce,  secured  the 
consent  of  Senator  Denegre  to  introduce  a  bill  that  just 
suited  them.  Senator  Orr  joined  with  him  and  f  they  intro- 
duced the  bill,  not  as  their  own,  but  "by  request." 

This  bill  tied  the  people  of  the  three  large  cities  of  the 
state  hand  and  foot  and  turned  them  over  to  the  company 
gagged  and  bound. 

It  ripped  the  hoine  rule  charters  of  St.  Paul  and  Duluth 
wide  open,  gave  the  company  everything  they  could  ask 
and  more,  and  left  the  people  without  a  word  to  say. 

But  this  bill  did  not  last  long.  The  people  began  to 
be  heard  from.  The  St.  Paul  Daily  News  showed  up  its 
true  inwardness.  Commercial  clubs  and  other  organizations 
passed  resolutions  against  it.  The  St.  Paul  City  Council 
directed  City  Attorney  O'Neil  to  investigate  and  report;  and 
when  his  report  was  read,  the  bill  was  condemned  unani- 
mously. The  Minneapolis  City  Council  also  condemned  the 
bill  after  the  citizens  had  packed  the  chamber  to  overflowing 
in  opposition. 

Orr  repudiated  the  bill,  and  later  both  he  and  Denegre 
withdrew  it  and  there  it  died. 

It  was  plain  that  St.  Paul  and  Duluth  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  such  a  measure. 

The  company  saw  that  it  had  blundered  and  blundered 
badly;  and  it  started  on  a  different  plan. 

St.  Paul  and  Duluth,  with  their  home  rule  charters  and 
their  popular  referendum  were  both  left  out,  and  their  new 
bill  applied  to  Minneapolis  only. 

At  the  request  of  the  company  the  Civic  and  Commerce 
Association  had  a  bill  drawn  by  Mr.  Rockwood,  its  attorney, 
that  looked  fair  on  its  surface;  but  lacked  many  things  that 
it  should  have  contained  to  safeguard  the  people's  rights. 

In  order  to  make  its  passage  sure,  it  provided  that  no 
franchise  to  the  company  should  go  into  effect  until  ratified 
by  the  people. 

The  bill  was  still  very  dangerous;  but  it  was  almost 
impossible  to  make  the  legislature  see  the  danger. 

A  considerable  majority  of  the  Hennepin  delegation  had 
been  brought  to  favor  it.  Men  who  had  denounced  the  cor- 
porations in  unmeasured  terms  were  found  voting  for  it. 
The  referendum  clause  saved  it. 

When  the  bill  came  up  in  the  House  April  13th,  Mr. 
Guilford  made  a  good  but  losing  fight  to  amend  it  so  as  to 
give  the  city  council  at  all  times  the  "power  to  require  rea- 
sonable extensions,  betterments,  equipment  and  adequate 
service,  and  to  regulate  construction,  operation,  rates  of 
fares,  and  the  power  herein  granted  shall  not  be  contracted 
away." 

This  amendment  was  defeated  57  to  62. 


42 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 

Anderson 

Holmes 

Pratt 

Baldwin 

Hompe 

Putnam 

Bendixen 

Hulbert 

Searls 

Bernard 

Indrehus 

Sliter 

Bjorge 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Smith 

Bjornson 

Johnson,  M. 

Sorflaten 

Burrows 

Kuntz 

Stevens 

Christiansen 

Larson 

Stoetzel 

Corning 

Lattin  . 

Swanson 

Davis 

Lee 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

Dealand 

McGrath 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Devoid 

Madigan 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Frye 

Marwin 

Tollefson 

Gordon 

Morken 

Vasaly 

Grant 

Nordgren 

Wefald 

Guilford 

Norton 

Wilson 

Hafften 

Novak 

Wold 

Hauser 

Olien 

Woodfill 

Hynes,  J.  H. 

Peterson,  A. 

Mr.  Speaker 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Adams  Harrison,  J.  M.  Peterson,  A.   M. 

Baker  Hinds,  E.  R.  Pikop 

Bessette  Hogenson  Pless 

Borgen  Knutson  Ribenack 

Bouck  Konzen  Rodenberg 

Boyd  Larimore  Sanborn 

Brown  Lennon  Sawyer 

Condon  Leonard  Seebach 

Dare  Lydiard  Schrooten 

Dunleavy  McLaughlin  Scott 

Dwyer  Malmberg  Southwick 

Erickson  Marschalk  -Steen 

Ferrier  Miner  Sttimck 

Flinn  Minnette  Sudheimer 

Gerlich  Murphy  Swenson 

Gill  Nelson  Syverson 

Gilman  Nietzel  Thompson,  A.  L. 

Girling  Nimocks  Thornton 

Greene  North  Warner 

Haislet  Papke  Wilkins 

Harrison,  H.  H.         Parker 

As  introduced  the  bill  contained  this  clause:  "The  fran- 
chise may  provide  for  the  operation  of  suburban  cars  over 
the  tracks  of  the  company." 

Mr.  Guilford  moved  to  amend  this  clause  to  read  as 
follows:  "The  city  shall  reserve  the  right  to  authorize  any 
existing  or  future  suburban  railway  company  the  joint  use 
of  tracks,  poles,  wires,  appliances,  power  and  electric  cur- 
rent, of  any  company  to  which  a  franchise  is  granted  under 
this  act,  and  the  franchise  shall  contain  provisions  for  de- 
termining the  compensation  to  be  paid  for  such  joint  use." 

This  amendment  carried,  yeas  65  and  nays  57,  as  follows : 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Anderson  Bernard  Bjornson 

Barten  Bjorge  Borgen 

Bendixen  Bjorklund  Boyd 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


43 


Burrows 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Searls 

Christiansen 

Johnson,  M. 

Sliter 

Corning 

Larson 

Sorflaten 

Davis 

Lattin 

Spooner 

Dealand 

Lee 

Stevens 

Devoid 

McGrath 

Stoetzel 

Erickson 

Madigan 

Swanson 

Frye 

Marwin 

Swenson 

Gill 

Morken 

'    Teigen,  A.  F. 

Gordon 

Nordgren 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Grant 

Norton 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Guilford 

Novak 

Tollefson 

Hafften 

Olien 

Vasaly 

Hauser 

Parker 

Wefald 

Hynes,  J.  H. 

Peterson,  A. 

Wilson 

Holmes 

Pikop 

Wold 

Hompe 

Pratt 

Woodfill 

Hulbert 

Putnam 

Mr.  Speaker 

Indrehus 

Sawyer 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Adams  Hinds,  B.  R.  Papke 

Baker  Hogenson  Peterson,  A.  M. 

Baldwin  Kneeland  Pless 

Bessette  Knutson  Ribenack 

Bouck  Konzen  Sanborn 

Brown  Kuntz  Seebach 

Condon  Larimore  Schrooten 

Dare  Lennon  Scott 

Dunleavy  Leonard  Smith 

Dwyer  Lydiard  Southwick 

Ferrier  McLaughlin  Steen 

Flinn  Malmberg  Stenvick 

Gerlich  Marschalk  Sudheimer 

Gilman  Minnette  Syverson 

Girling  Murphy  Thompson,  A.  L. 

Greene  Nelson  Thornton 

Haislet  Nietzel  Warner 

Harrison,  H.  H.         Nimocks  .  Weld 

Harrison,   J.   M.         North  Wilkins 

The  bill  was  considerably  improved. 

Why  there  should  have  been  any  opposition  to  either 
of  the  Guilford  amendments  it  is  difficult  to  understand; 
but  the  supporters  of  the  bill  as  it  was  reported  out  by  a 
majority  of  the  Hennepin  delegation  made  strong  pleas 
against  any  amendments,  and  many  country  members  vote 
on  city  questions  with  the  majority  of  the  city  members. 

And  then  they  were  too  much  influenced  by  the  refer- 
endum clause. 

A 'large  number  of  members  were  really  made  to  believe 
that  something  must  be  done  at  this  session. 

Another  thing  that  helped  pass  the  bill  was  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Devoid,  a  Socialist  member,  had  made  a  strong 
fight  against  it.  His  arguments  were  good  but  prejudice 
is  strong;  and  some  members  frankly  admitted  that  they 
were  influenced  to  vote  for  the  bill  because  the  Socialist 
opposed  it. 

On  the   other  hand,   one  or  two  open-minded   members 


44 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


gave  Devoid  credit  for  helping  them  to  see  objections  to 
the  bill. 

But  the  corporation  men  had  been  very  busy  trading 
for  the  bill  and  tying  up  all  the  votes  possible. 

On  the  final  ballot  the  bill  passed  77  to  44. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 


M. 


Adams 

Baker 

Bessette 

Bjorklund 

Borgen 

fiouck 

Boyd 

Brown 

Burrows 

Condon 

Dare 

Dealand 

Dunleavy 

Dwyer 

Erickson 

Ferrier 

Flinn 

Gerlich 

Gill 

Oilman 

Girling 

Gordon 

Haislet 

Harrison,  H.  H. 

Harrison,  J.   M. 

Hinds,  E.  R. 

Those  who 
Anderson 
Baldwin 
Barten 
Bernard 
Bjorge 
Bjornson 
Christiansen 
Corning 
Davis 
Devoid 
Frye 
Grant 
Guilford 
Hafften 
Hauser 

When  this  bill  reached  the  Senate  William  A.  Campbell 
made  a  hard  fight  to  amend  it  in  several  particulars,  but 
here  again  prejudice  was  strong,  and  he  failed  either  to 
amend  or  defeat  the  bill. 

On  final  passage  the  vote  stood  45  to  21. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Adams  Andrews  Benson 

Alley  Baldwin  Blomgren 


Hulbert 

Hflgenson 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Kneeland 

Knutson 

Konzen 

Kuntz 

Larimore 

Lennon 

Leonard 

Lydiard 

Madigan 

Malmberg 

Marschalk 

Miner 

Minnette 

Morken 

Murphy 

Nelson 

Nietzel 

Nimocks 

North 

Papke 

Parker 

Peterson,  A 

Pikop 


Pless 

Pratt 

Putnam 

Ribenack 

Rodenberg 

Sanborn 

Sawyer 

Searles 

Schrooten 

Scott 

Smith 

Southwick 

•Spooner 

Steen 

Stevens 

Sudheimer 

Swenson 

Syverson 

Thompson,  A.  L. 

Thornton 

Tollefson 

Warner 

Wefald 

Weld 

Wilkins 

Mr.  Speaker 


voted  in  the  negative 

were: 

Hynes,  J.  H. 

Peterson,  A. 

Holmes 

Seebach     . 

Hompe 

Sliter 

Indrehus 

Sorflaten 

Johnson,  M.     • 

Stenvick 

Larson 

Stoetzel 

Lattin 

Swanson 

Lee 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

McGrath 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

McLaughlin 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Marwin 

Vasaly 

Nordgren 

Wilson 

Norton 

Wold 

Novak 

Woodfill 

Olien 

The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915  45 


Buckler 

Griggs 

Peterson,  G 

.  M. 

Callahan 

Grose 

Putnam 

Campbell,  A.  S. 

Handlan 

Ries 

Carley 

Healy 

Rustad 

Collester 

Hegnes 

Sullivan,  G. 

H. 

Denegre 

Hilbert 

Swenson 

Dunn,  R.  C. 

Holmberg 

Turnham 

Dunn,  W.  W. 

Johnston 

Van  Hoven 

Duxbury 

McGarry 

Vibert 

Dwinnell 

Nord 

Wallace 

Gandrud 

O'Nell 

Ward      ' 

Gjerset 

Pauly 

Weis 

Glotzbach 

Peterson,  E.  P. 

Westlake 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Bonniwell  .        Knopp  Peterson,  F.  H. 

Campbell,  W.  A.        Lende  Potter 

Gardner  Lobeck  Rockne 

Gillam  Millett  Rystrom 

Hanson  Nelson  -Sageng 

Jackson  Orr  Steffen 

Jones  Palmer  Vermilya 

These  twenty-one  are  pretty  strong  anti-corporation  men. 

The   Jitney   Bus   Bill. 

This  was  another  bill  that  the  street  railway  company 
was  anxious  to  get  thru,  but  here  they  failed  completely. 

For  this  little  funeral  the  people  are  largely  indebted 
to  Pratt  of  Anoka,  who  has  shown  himself  to  be  one  of  the 
keenest  and  ablest  men  in  the  House,  always  fearless  and 
independent. 

If  the  traction  company  can't  keep  the  jitneys  off  the 
streets  entirely,  the  next  best  thing  is  to  tie  them  up  as 
much  as  possible,  with  heavy  license  fees  and  excessive  in- 
demnity bonds,  and  that  is  what  this  bill  was  for. 

Westlake  and  Wallace  were  its  sponsors  in  the  Senate. 

Westlake  was  also  father  of  a  bill  to  permit  the  rail- 
ways of  the  state  to  charge  2^  cents  per  mile  passenger 
fare.  This  bill  did  not  get  very  far,  tho  Pennington,  J.  J. 
Hill  and  other  railway  magnates,  at  a  great  public  hearing, 
made  eloquent  pleas  for  an  increase  of  passenger  fare. 

CHAPTER  VII. 
GOOD   ROADS. 

Everybody  wants  good  roads. 

The  dispute  comes  over  the  question  how  they  shall  be 
built  and  paid  for. 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  good  roads  greatly  increase 
the  value  of  lands  that  abut  upon  them  or  lie  near  them. 

The  farm  crops  are  worth  much  more,  if  there  is  a  good 
road  over  which  to  haul  them  to  market — for  it  costs  much 
less  to  get  them  there. 

All  products  of  equal  grade  bring  the  same  price  at  the 
market,  regardless  of  the  distance  they  have  been  hauled  or 
the  cost  of  getting  them  there. 

Let  us  suppose  a  farm  of  160  acres  any  distance  from 
market  on  a  very  poor  road.  That  farm  is  not  very  valuable. 
It  can't  be  sold  for  a  very  large  price.  The  cost  of  hauling  its 


46 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

products  to  the  market  is  so  great  that  their  value  is  largely 
.eaten  up  in  the  expense  of  transportation. 

Now  suppose  a  good  road  to  be  built  to  the  market  town. 
What  effect  will  it  have  on  the  selling  price  of  that  farm? 
What  effect  will  it  have  on  the  selling  price  of  all  the  land 
along  the  road,  from  the  market  town  out  as  far  as  the  road 
is  built? 

Any  good  road,  economically  built,  suitable  to  the  needs 
of  the  people  who  own  the  adjoining  lands,  will  cause  an 
increase  in  the  value  of  those  lands  by  more  than  enough 
to  pay  for  the  entire  cost  of  the  road. 

The    Elwell    Road    Law. 

This  law  owes  its  name  to  Senator  Elwell  of  Minneapolis 
who  secured  its  passage. 

The  vital  features  of  this  law  only  need  to  be  stated. 
The  injustice  of  the  law  will  speak  for  itself. 

First,  only  six  land  owners  were  required  to  sign  a 
petition  to  start  proceedings  for  an  Elwell  road. 

Second,  a  mere  majority  of  the  board  of  county  com- 
missioners could  then  order  the  road  built. 

Third,  only  one-fourth  of  the  cost  of  the  road  must  be 
paid  by  the  benefited  land  owners;  while  three-fourths 
must  be  shared  by  other  people  who  got  no  direct  benefit 
at  all;  and  worst  of  all  these  three-fourths  could  be  paid 
for  in  bond  issues,  thus  saddling  this  part  of  the  cost  upon 
the  county  and  state  to  be  paid  later. 

Fourth,  when  lands  were  drained  'tinder  the  ditch  law, 
the  dirt  can  be  used  to  make  a  good  road  along  the  ditch. 

The  benefited  land  owners  have  to  pay  the  entire  cost 
as  they  ought. 

After  the  Elwell  law  was  passed  these  could  be  called 
"roads"  instead  of  ditches.  The  lands  would  be  drained  just 
the  same,  but  the  benefited  owners  would  pay  only  one- 
fourth  the  cost,  the  whole  county  and  state  paying  the  rest. 

Thus  this  law  lent  itself  to  fraud  as  well  as  to  injustire. 

A  considerable  number  of  both  houses  had  been  elected 
to  repeal  the  Elwell  law.  The  most  active  and  determined 
of  these  was  Senator  Vermilya  of  Olmstead  county,  who  intro- 
duced a  bill  for  repeal  early  in  the  session. 

March  3rd  the  bill  was  passed  and  sent  over  to  the  House. 

Vermilya,  O'Neil,  Rockne,  Duxbury  and  Geo.  Sullivan 
spoke  in  favor  of  repeal. 

Nord,  Adams,  Andrews  and  Dwinnell  defended  the  Elwell 
law. 

As  the  discussion  progressed  it  became  very  plain  that 
the  opponents  of  the  law  had  the  best  of  the  argument. 
Several  senators,  who  had  not  given  much  thought  to  the 
question,  were  convinced  and  voted  against  the  Elwell  law. 
This  feeling  was  expressed  by  Senator  Alley  who  declared  that 
he  had  been  convinced  that  the  law  should  be  repealed. 

The  vote  stood  thirty-nine  to  twenty-five  in  favor  of  repeal 
as  follows: 

Those  who  favored  repeal  were: 

Alley  Bonniwell  Campbell,  W.  A. 

Benson  Buckler  Carley 

Blomgren  Campbell,  A.  S.          Duxbury 


'  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915  47 


Gandrud 

Lende 

Rustad 

Gardner 

Lobeck 

Rystrom 

Gillam 

Millett 

Sageng 

Gjerset 

Nelson 

Steffen 

Glotzbach 

O'Neill 

Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Hanson 

Peterson,  E.  P. 

Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Hilbert 

Peterson,  F.  H. 

Swenson 

Holmberg 

Potter 

Turnham 

Johnston 

Ries 

Verlimya 

Knopp 

Rockne 

Ward 

Those  against 

repeal  were: 

Adams 

Grose 

Palmer 

Andrews 

Hand  Ian 

Pauly 

Baldwin 

Healy 

Peterson,  G.  M. 

Callahan 

Hegnes 

Van  Hoven 

Collester 

Jackson 

Vibert 

Denegre 

Jones 

Wallace 

Dunn,  W.  W. 

McGarry 

Westlake 

Dwinnell 

Nord 

Griggs 

Orr 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  opponents  of  repeal  nearly  all 
came  from  the  cities  and  the  northern  part  of  the  state;  and 
yet  the  cities  and  the  iron  country  had  to  pay  the  largest  part 
of  the  expense  under  the  Elwell  law. 

Wm.  A.  Campbell  was  the  only  city  senator  to  vote  for 
repeal. 

R.  C.  Dunn  was  excused.    Putnam  and  Weis  did  not  vote. 

In  the  House  it  was  the  same.  When  the  bill  came  up,  on 
special  order  March  llth,  it  was  put  over  till  the  18th  at  the 
request  of  the  city  members,  and  then,  on  the  18th,  Lari- 
more  tried  to  postpone  a  week  more.  This  move  met  with  a 
storm  of  opposition,  and  was  defeated  forty-six  to  sixty. 

Much  of  the  opposition  was  vigorous  and  to  the  point. 

Dealand  of  Nobles  county  "Let's  do  it  now." 

Christiansen  of  Lac  Qui  Parle  "Why  haven't  they  intro- 
duced amendments  before  this?" 

Seebach  of  Goodhue  "This  is  House  file  No.  2.  Haven't 
we  had  time  enough?" 

Johnson  of  Meeker  "I  can't  see  any  reason  for  delay. 
Let's  knock  it  in  the  head." 

Olien  of  Yellow  Medicine,  "We  can't  make  the  Elwell  law 
good.  It  is  a  bad  egg.  Throw  it  away." 

Oscar  Swenson  of  Nicollet  "If  we  repeal  the  law  it  will 
not  affect  existing  contracts.  Extra  time  is  wanted  for  lobby- 
ing purposes.  Repeal  it  now." 

Stenvick  of  Clearwater  declared  his  county  had  refused 
to  use  the  law.  As  county  attorney  he  had  opposed  it  as 
unjust.  Repeal  it  now. 

Bjornson  objected  that  the  proposed  amendments  were 
out  of  order,  as  they  were  not  germane  to  the  bill.  The 
speaker  sustained  him. 

Holmes  made  a  strong  point.  "Who  pays  for  the  Elwell 
roads?  All  the  people.  Who  vote  the  Elwell  roads?  A  few 
benefited  land  owners." 

Several  members  urged  delay,  but  no  one  attempted  to 
defend  the  law  on  its  merits. 


48 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915' 


Sawyer  continually  interrupted  the  opponents  of  the  law 
by  asking  if  they  had  built  any  roads  under  it,  apparently 
oblivious  to  the  fact  that  those  who  had  not  used  it,  had  got 
no  part  of  the  benefit,  but  must  pay  a  part  of  the  cost. 

The  Elwell  law  was  repealed  in  the  House  by  a  vote  of 
eighty  to  forty-one. 

The  vote  for  repeal  was : 


Anderson 

Baker 

Baldwin 

Barten 

Bendixen 

Bessette 

Bjorge 

Bjornson 

Boehmke 

Boyd 

Carmichael 

Christiansen 

Davis 

Dealand 

Erickson 

Ferrier 

Plinn 

Prye 

Gerlich 

Gill 

Girling 

Gordon 

Hafften 

Haislet 

Hauser 

Hynes,  J.  H. 

Hogenson 


Holmes 

Hompe 

Hulbert 

Indrehus 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Johnson,  M. 

Knutson 

Konzen 

Kuntz 

Larson 

Lattin 

Lee 

Leonard 

McLaughlin 

Madigan 

Malmberg 

Minnette 

Moeller 

Morken 

Mueller 

Nietzel 

Nordgren 

Novak 

Olien 

Papke 

Parker 

Peterson,  A. 


Pikop 

Pless 

Pratt 

Putnam 

Sanborn 

Seebach 

Schrooten 

Sliter 

Smith 

Sorflaten 

Spooner 

Stenvick 

Stevens 

Stoetzel 

Swanson 

Swenson 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Thompson,  A.  L. 

Tollefson 

Wefald 

Welch 

Wilkins 

Wilson 

Wold 

Woodflll 


Bernard  Harrison,  J.  M.  Pendergast 

Bjorklund  Hinds,  E.  R.  Peterson,  A.  M. 

Borgen  Kneeland  Ribenack 

Bouck  Larimore  Rodenberg 

Brown  Lennon  Sawyer 

Burrows  Lydiard  Scott 

Condon  McGrath  Southwick 

Corning  Marwin  Steen 

Dare  Miner  Thompson,  H.  0. 

Dunleavy  '     Murphy  Thornton 

Dwyer  Nelson  Vasaly 

Gilman  Ni  mocks  Warner 

Greene  North  Weld 

Guilford  Norton 

The  following  did  not  vote: 

Adams,  Devoid,  Grant,  H.  H.  Harrison,  Marschalk,  Searls, 
Sudheimer,   Syverson,   Mr.    Speaker. 

Adams,  Grant,  Marschalk  and  Syverson  had  been  excused. 

H.  H.  Harrison,  Searls  and  Sudheimer  had  voted  a  few 
moments  before. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 49 

Devoid  had  not  answered  at  roll-call  and  had  not  been 
found. 

Speaker  Flowers  was  present  of  course,  but  is  not 
recorded  as  voting. 

The  Dunn  Road  Law. 

The  same  members  who  had  come  pledged  to  repeal  the 
Elwell  law  were  also  determined  to  amend  the  Dunn  road  law 
in  some  very  important  particulars. 

The  Dunn  law  had  placed  great  power  in  a  state  highway 
commission,  and  had  taken  away  from  the  people  immediately 
interested  in  the  roads  a  large  part  of  the  control. 

It  was  freely  charged  that  the  state  highway  commission 
employed  young  and  inexperienced  men  as  assistant  engineers, 
that  these  young  men  were  often  impractical,  doing  poor  work 
at  great  expense  to  the  counties. 

This  law  was  amended  so  as  to  cut  out  the  worst  of 
the  evils. 

In  my  opinion  it  will  need  much  more  amendment  before 
it  will  work  justly,  or  give  satisfactory  results. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
TEMPERANCE    MEASURES. 

In  both  House  and  Senate  there  was  a  considerable  number 
who  were  avowed  prohibitionists  though  only  three  were 
members  of  that  party.  Some  of  these  were  representing 
"wet"  districts,  and  voted  the  wish  of  their  constituents 
rather  than  their  personal  convictions.  Several  who  were 
not  avowed  prohibitionists  voted  for  Prohibition  because  they 
felt  their  districts  expected  it  of  them.  A  number  who 
favored  county  option  opposed  Prohibition,  because  they  be- 
lieved that  it  was  better  to  allow  the  county  option  law  to 
have  two  years  to  prove  its  usefulness  before  going  any 
further.  There  were  enough  of  these  to  prevent  the  passage 
of  a  prohibition  amendment  to  the  constitution. 

On  the  whole  the  opponents  of  the  liquor  traffic  got  more 
from  this  legislature  by  far  than  in  all  the  preceding  history 
of  the  state. 

The  County  Option  Bill. 

This  bill  came  up  in  the  Senate  on  Thursday,  Feb.  4th. 

It  was  carefully  drawn  providing  for  a  special  election 
upon  petition  of  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  votes  for  governor 
at  the  last  preceding  election. 

The  bill  did  nothing  but  refer  to  the  voters  of  the  county — 
"Shall  the  sale  of  liquor  be  prohibited?"  When  once  deter- 
mined the  question  cannot  be  raised  again  for  a  term  of  three 
years. 

The  voters  of  the  entire  county  were  to  decide  whether 
the  whole  country  should  be  "dry"  or  the  present  system  of 
"local  option"  should  continue.  The  supporters  of  the  bill 
pointed  out  that  under  the  present  so-called  "local  option" 
law  the  farmers  outside  the  village  or  city  limits  have  no 
voice  on  this  question. 

It  would  seem  that  the  village  is  hardly  a  logical  social 
unit  to  determine  a  question  that  is  of  sucii  vital  importance 
to  all  the  people  of  the  surrounding  country. 

The  county  is  the  unit  for  the  support  of  paupers.     The 


50 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

county  must  stand  the  expense  for  the  prosecution  of  crim- 
inals. Why  then  is  not  the  county  the  logical  unit  to  decide 
whether  this  pauper-breeding,  crime-producing  traffic  shall 
be  permitted  or  not? 

Wrongs  should  never  be  licensed,  and  right  acts  need 
no  license.  An  acknowledged  evil  like  the  liquor  traffic  should 
never  be  forced  on  the  people  of  any  community,  and  no  com- 
munity should  be  permitted  to  selfishly  maintain  such  a  traffic 
to  the  physical,  moral,  and  financial  injury  of  the  people 
outside  such  community  who  are  denied  all  voice  or  vote  on 
the  question. 

The  first  attack  upon  the  bill  was  made  by  Senator  J.  D. 
Sullivan  of  St.  Cloud,  who  offered  an  amendment  to  force  the 
liquor  traffic  on  every  community  in  the  county  in  case  a 
majority  of  the  county  voted  "wet." 

Senator  Sullivan  denounced  the  bill  in  a  long  and  vigor- 
ous speech,  declaring  that  it  violated  every  principle  of  home 
rule  and  local  self  government — wholly  ignoring  the  fact  that 
his  own  amendment  was  a  far  worse  violation  of  local  self 
government. 

This  amendment  of  the  St.  Cloud  senator  was  too  much 
for  even  George  H.  Sullivan  of  Washington  county,  who  de- 
clared himself  a  logical  believer  in  the  present  local  option 
system  and  would  not  stand  for  any  law  that  forced  the  liquor 
traffic  on  any  unwilling  community — nor  would  he  vote  to  de- 
prive any  community  of  liquor  if  they  wanted  it  licensed. 

The  flaw  in  the  last  part  of  Geo.  Sullivan's  reasoning 
is  this: 

That  the  present  so-called  "local  option"  system  does  force 
the  liquor  traffic  on  the  farmers  who  live  outside  the  village 
limits,  and  without  whom  the  village  could  not  exist. 

And  it  does  force  the  expense  of  the  traffic  on  the  whole 
county,  who  must  support  the  paupers  and  prosecute'  the 
criminals  directly  resulting  from  the  license  system. 

In  spite  of  the  utter  lack  of  logic  and  consistency  the 
following  twenty-nine  senators  voted  for  the  J.  D.  Sullivan 
amendment: 

Baldwin  Grose  Peterson,  G.  M. 

Bonniwell  Handlan  Ries 

Buckler  Healy  Rockne 

Callahan  Hilbert  Steffen 

Campbell,  A.  S.          Johnston  Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Carley  Knopp  Swenson 

Collester  McGarry  Van  Hoven 

Denegre  Millett  Weis 

Dunn,  W.  W.  Nord  Westlake 

Glotzbach  Pauly  . 

The   following   thirty-eight   were   against  it: 
Adams  Dwinnell  Holmberg 

Alley  Gandrud  Jackson 

Andrews  Gardner  Jones 

Benson  Gillam  Lende 

Blomgren  Gjerset  Lobeck 

Campbell,  W.  A.    *    Griggs  Nelson 

Dunn,  R.  C.  Hanson  O'Neill 

Duxbury  Hegnes  Orr 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


51 


Palmer 

Rustad 

Vermilya 

Peterson,  E.  P. 

Rystrom 

Vibert 

Peterson,  F.  H. 

Sageng 

Wallace 

Potter 

Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Ward 

Putnam, 

Turnham 

The  next  attack  was  made  by  Senator  W.  W.  Dunn  of 
St.  Paul,  attorney  for  the  Hamm  Brewing  Company,  who  tried 
to  cut  out  the  special  election  feature  of  the  bill  and  mix  the 
question  up  with  all  the  distracting  interests  of  a  general 
election. 

This  plea  for  economy  caught  R.  C.  Dunn  of  Mille  Lacs 
and  Ward  of  Farimont;  but  Collester  and  G.  M.  Peterson 
voted  against  it  and  it  was  lost  thirty-one  yeas  to  thirty-six 
nays. 

Then  on  motion  of  Geo.  H.  Sullivan,  by  a  vote  of  thirty- 
seven  to  thirty,  the  date  of  the  special  election  was  fixed 
on  Monday  instead  of  Tuesday,  for  the  benefit  of  traveling 
men. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  any  valid  objection  to  this  amend- 
ment and  there  are  good  reasons  for  it.  Yet  it  only  secured 
the  votes  of  the  following  "dry"  senators:  Adams,  Wm.  A. 
Campbell,  Duxbury,  Griggs,  Hegnes,  Jones. 

All  the  other  "drys"  seemed  to  fear  the  "Greeks  bearing 
gifts." 

On  final  passage  county  option  won  36  to  31  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 


Adams 

Griggs 

Peterson,  E. 

P. 

Alley 

Hanson 

Peterson,  F. 

H. 

Andrews 

Hegnes 

Potter 

Benson 

Holmberg 

Putnam 

Blomgren 

Jackson 

Rustad 

Campbell,  W.  A. 

Jones 

Rystrom 

Dunn,  R.  C. 

Lende 

Sageng 

Duxbury 

Lobeck 

Turnham 

Dwinnell 

Nelson 

Vermilya 

Gandrud 

O'Neill 

Vibert 

Gillam 

Orr 

Wallace 

Ojerset 

Palmer 

Ward 

Those  who 

voted  in  the  negative 

were  : 

Baldwin 

Grose 

Ries 

Bonniwell 

Handlan 

Rockne 

Buckler 

Healy 

Steffen 

Callahan 

Hilbert 

Sullivan,  G. 

H. 

Campbell,  A.  S. 

Jonnston 

Sullivan,   J. 

T). 

Carley 

Knopp 

Swenson 

Collester 

McGarry 

Van  Hoven 

Denegre 

Millett 

Weis 

Dunn,  W.  W. 

Nord 

Westlake 

Gardner 

Pauly 

Glotzbach 

Peterson,  G.  M. 

John  Lind. 

After  the  bill  had  passed  the  Senate  a  hearing  was  held 
in  the  House  chamber  at  which,  among  other  speakers,  Ex- 
Governor  John  Lind  made  a  most  effective  argument  for  the 
bill,  completely  answering  every  point  made  by  the  paid 


52 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

attorneys  of  the  breweries  who  were  there  opposing  the 
measure. 

In  the  House  the  contest  was  long  and  fierce.  The 
special  order  was  set  for  eleven  o'clock  Wednesday  morning, 
February  24th.  Long  before  that  hour  arrived  the  gallaries 
were  packed  with  friends  and  foes  of  the  bill. 

Oratory  was  abundant;  but  mostly  had  little  bearing  on 
the  merits  of  the  measure. 

Mr.  Warner  opened  in  favor  of  the  bill  with  a  speech 
that  fairly  set  forth  the  reasons  urged  by  its  supporters. 

He  was  followed  by  Mr.  Carmichael,  who  eloquently 
defended  the  "foundations  of  our  free  institutions"  which  were 
in  great  danger  of  being  overthrown  if  such  a  measure  should 
ever  become  a  law.  Even  our  Christianity  and  Civilization 
are  endangered. 

Others  who  spoke  for  the  bill  were  Hompe,  Stenvick, 
Holmes,  Wefald,  Corning,  A.  F.  Teigen,  Bendixen  and 
Bjornson. 

Against  the  bill  were  H.  H.  Harrison,  Lennon,  Moeller, 
Pendergast,  Minette,  Dwyer,  Devoid,  Oilman,  Davis  and  Lari- 
more. 

Devoid  pleaded  the  cause  of  the  workingman  that  would 
be  thrown  out  of  employment,  wholly  ignoring  two  important 
facts : 

First,  that  any  definite  amount  of  money  spent  for  liquor, 
only  employs  a  small  fraction  of  the  labor  that  the  same 
amount  of  money  employs  when  spent  for  other  necessaries 
of  life,  and 

Second,  that  under  a  county  option  system  the  readjust- 
ment of  business  would  be  very  gradual  and  the  displaced  men 
would  have  plenty  of  chance  to  find  other  employment. 

Mr.  Lennon,  who  represents  the  district  where  the  Min- 
neapolis Brewing  Company  is  located,  made  a  strong  plea 
against  the  bill,  quoting  President  Wilson's  argument  for 
local  option,  but  wholly  ignoring  the  facts  that  Wilson  favored 
local  option  as  against  no  option,  as  a  means  of  allowing  the 
people  to  get  rid  of  saloons,  and  further,  that  Wilson's  words 
are  a  stronger  plea  still  for  county  option,  for  he  declared 
that  the  "people  interested"  should  be  allowed  to  vote  on  the 
question;  and  surely  the  people  of  the  county  are  very  espe- 
cially interested. 

Mr.  Lennon  also  feared  for  the  farmer  whose  corn  would 
go  begging  in  the  market  if  it  could  not  be  sold  to  make 
whiskey  of.  He  was  forcibly  answered  by  the  statement  that 
the  farmers  would  "raise  more  hogs  and  less  hell." 

Larimore,  Davis  and  Harrison  declared  their  belief  in 
state  wide  prohibition,  and  said  they  would  vote  for  such  a 
bill;  but  Mr.  Larimore,  at  least  had  written  a  letter  to  the 
Saturday  Lunch  Club  and  to  Mr.  Chadbourne  of  the  Associa- 
tion of  Church  Clubs,  which  are  hardly  capable  of  any  other 
interpretation  than  that  he  would,  if  elected,  vote  for  a  county 
option  bill. 

It  is  hard  to  understand  the  vote  of  Mr.  Sawyer  against 
the  bill.  He  has  always  heretofore  voted  for  the  measure, 
and  time  and  again  has  declared  that  he  would  support 
county  option  and  all  other  reasonable  temperance  measures. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 53 

Mr.  Baker  of  Fillmore  County  also  repudiated  his  written 
and  verbal  pledges  and  voted  against  the  bill. 

We  can  respect  the  honest  opponent  of  county  option, 
who  made  his  campaign  on  that  issue  and  faithfully  carried 
out  the  will  of  his  constituents;  but  what  shall  we  think  of 
the  man  who  repudiates  his  pledges,  misrepresents  his  district 
and  casts  his  ballot  against  a  measure  that  he  was  pledged 
and  elected  to  support! 

After  nearly  four  hours  of  oratory  for  and  against  the 
bill,  and  when  the  liquor  men  began  to  see  that  they  were 
defeated  unless  they  could  gain  time  to  bring  pressure  to 
bear  on  some  of  the  weaker  ones  that  were  pledged  to  support 
the  bill,  a  desperate  effort  was  made  to  take  a  recess. 

If  anything  could  beat  this  bill  this  would  do  it,  but 
there  were  several  opponents  of  the  bill  who  refused  to  lend 
themselves  to  such  tactics,  and  so  all  the  attempts  failed. 

It  was  noticeable,  however,  that  Spooner,  Erickson,  Saw- 
yer and  Baker  voted  with  the  wets  to  gain  time. 

On  final  passage  Sawyer  and  Baker  stayed  with  the  wets, 
but  Spooner  and  Erickson  voted  for  the  bill. 

Why? — Perhaps  Mr.  Spooner  can  explain  this  course.  He 
should  be  given  every  possible  opportunity  to  do  so.  He  will 
need  it. 

One  vote  was  all  that  was  needed,  and  it  looked  very  much 
as  if  Mr.  Spooner  was  helping  them  to  get  it. 

There  were  three  motions  for  a  recess.  The  first  was 
offered  by  Mr.  Lydiard  and  was  voted  down  sixty-one  to 
sixty-seven. 

Four  men  who  were  pledged  to  support  county  option 
voted  for  this  recess:  Baker,  Erickson,  Sawyer  and  Spooner. 

Four  opponents  of  county  option  voted  with  the  "drys"  to 
defeat  the  motion  for  a  recess,  H.  H.  Harrison,  Scott,  Sliter 
and  Swenson. 

The  next  motion  for  a  recess  was  offered  by  Mr.  Erickson 
and  was  supported  by  the  same  four  men  pledged  to  county 
option.  Only  Scott,  Swenson  and  Thornton  of  the  wets  op- 
posed this  motion. 

Mr.  Konzen,  a  county  option  man,  was  now  feeling  quite 
weak  and  sick,  and  felt  that  he  must  get  out  into  the  open 
air  and  get  something  to  eat,  so  he  moved  to  recess  until  seven 
p.  m.  This  motion  received  only  his  own  and  the  otlrer  four 
supposedly  "dry"  votes  and  was  defeated  sixty-three  to  sixty- 
five.  Scott,  Swenson  and  Thornton  were  the  only  '"wets"  to 
vote  against  this  motion.  At  this  point  Mr.  Spooner  spoke  in 
favor  of  a  recess,  saying  he  was  very  hungry. 

It  had  now  become  plain  that  no  recess  could  be  secured, 
so  the  next  move  was  to  try  to  kill  the  bill  by  amendments: 

The  first  amendment  was  offered  by  McGrath  of  St.  Paul 
and  attempted  to  exempt  all  cities  of  the  state  from  the 
operation  of  the  bill. 

This  was  defeated  fifty-two  to  seventy-five.  Baker, 
•Sawyer  and  Erickson  voted  for  this  amendment  to  kill  the 
bill. 

The  following  opponents  of  the  bill  refused  to  vote  for 
this  amendment  to  kill  it:  Brown,  Burrows,  Greene,  H.  H. 
Harrison,  J.  H.  Hynes,  Murphy,  Novak,  Scott  and  Swenson. 

The  next,  move  to  kill  the  bill  was  made  by  Gerlich  of 


54 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


Mankato  who  tried  to  exempt  from  its  operation  the  three 
large  cities  of  the  state. 

This  amendment  was  lost  thirty-nine  to  eighty-six,  the 
thirty-nine  were  all  consistent  opponents  of  the  bill  and  the 
following  twenty-one  who  finally  voted  against  the  bill  refused 
to  help  kill  it  in  this  way:  Baker,  Barten,  Brown,  Burrows, 
Green,  H.  H.  Harrison,  E.  R.  Hinds,  J.  H.  Hynes,  Kuntz,  Malm- 
berg,  Miner,  Minnette,  Murphy,  Nelson,  Novak,  Papke,  Rod- 
enberg,  Sawyer,  Scott,  Smith,  Stoetzel  and  Swenson. 

After  Mr.  Welch  had  failed  to  amend  the  bill  so  as  to 
permit  a  brewer  located  in  a  dry  county  to  sell  at  wholesale 
within  that  county,  the  bill  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  sixty-six 
to  sixty-two. 

Devoid  not  voting,  and  Boyd,  who  was  sick  and  excused, 
making  up  the  total  House  of  130. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 


Adams 

Holmes 

Pratt 

Anderson 

Hompe 

Putnam 

Bendixen 

Hulbert 

Sanborn 

Bernard 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Searls 

B  jorge 

Johnson,  M. 

Sorflaten 

Bjorklund 

Kneeland 

Southwick 

Bjornson 

Knutson 

Spooner 

Boehmke 

Konzen 

Stenvick 

Christiansen 

Larson 

Stevens 

Corning 

Lattin 

Swanson 

Dare 

Lee 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

Dealand 

Madigan 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Erickson 

Marschalk 

Thompson,  A.  L. 

Flinn 

Marwin 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Frye 

Morken 

Tollefson 

Gill 

Nordgren 

Vasaly 

Gordon 

Norton 

Warner 

Grant 

Olien 

Wefald 

Guilford 

Parker 

Weld 

Harrison,  J.  M. 

Peterson,  A. 

Wilson 

Hauser 

Peterson,  A.  M. 

Wold 

Hogenson 

Pikop 

Woodflll 

Those  who 

voted  in  the  negative 

were: 

Baker 

Greene 

Moeller 

Baldwin' 

Hafften 

Mueller 

Barten 

Haislet 

Murphy 

Bessette 

Harrison,  H.  H. 

Nelson 

Borgen 

Hinds,  E.  R. 

Nietzel 

Bouck 

Hynes,  J.  H. 

Nimocks 

Brown 

Indrehus 

North 

Burrows 

Kuntz 

Novak 

Carmichael 

Larimore 

Papke 

Condon 

Lennon 

Pendergast 

Davis 

Leonard 

Pless 

Dunleavy 

Lydiard 

Ribenack 

Dwyer 

McGrath 

Rodenberg 

Ferrier 

McLaughlin 

Sawyer 

Gerlich 

Malmberg 

Seebach 

Oilman 

Miner 

Schrooten 

Girling 

Minnette 

Scott 

The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 55 

Sliter  Sudheimer  Welch 

Smith  Swenson  Wilkins 

Steen  Syverson  Mr.  Speaker 

Stoetzel  Thornton 

Great  credit  is  due  to  Oscar  A.  Swenson  of  Nicollet 
county  for  his  stand  during  the  long  contest. 

He  was  expected  by  his  constituents  to  vote  against  the 
bill  and  did  so;  but  he  stood  out  firmly  in  strong  combat  to 
some  of  those  who  voted  for  the  bill  on  final  passage,  in  his 
refusal  to  support  any  scheme  for  recess  or  delay  to  allow 
the  "wets"  to  get  in  their  work  to  defeat  the  bill;  and  he 
stoutly  opposed  all  amendments  to  kill  or  emasculate  it. 

State  Wide  Prohibition. 

This  question  came  up  in  two  different  forms: 

First,  Prohibition  by  statute, 

Second,   Prohibition   by  amendment   to   the  constitution. 

There  is  little  doubt  that  a  statute  prohibiting  the  manu- 
facture, importation,  and  sale  of  all  intoxicating  liquors  within 
the  state  of  Minnesota  would  be  declared  constitutional. 

There  is  some  doubt  whether  this  would  be  a  wise  course 
to  pursue. 

A  statute  passed  by  one  legislature  can  always  be- 
repealed  by  the  next  or  any  succeeding  legislature. 

The  question  would  not  be  settled.  It  would  be  all  the 
while  in  politics.  There  would.be  a  constant  strife  between 
"wets"  and  "drys."  The  liquor  interests  would  be  on  the 
watch  to  secure  a  majority  of  each  legislature  favorable  to  the 
repeal  of  the  statute.  This  would  be  almost  sure  to  continue 
until  one  side  or  the  other  was  worn  out  and  ready  to  give 
up. 

For  these  reasons  many  members  of  both  houses  were 
not  willing  to  support  the  extremely  drastic  bills  introduced 
into  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Lobeck  and  into  the  House  by  Mr. 
Anderson. 

The  Lobeck  bill  came  up  on  March  llth  and  received  only 
17  votes  as  follows: 

Andrews  Hegnes  Putnam 

Blomgren  Lende  Rystrom 

Gandrud  Lobeck  Sageng 

Gillam  Palmer  Turnham 

Gjerset  Peterson,  E.  P.          Vermilya 

Hanson  Peterson,  F.  H. 

Even  some  of  these  voted  for  the  bill  out  of  personal 
regard  for  Mr.  Lobeck. 

Constitutional  Prohibition. 

To  submit  the  question  to  a  vote  of  the  people  is  a  dif- 
ferent matter. 

The  people  are  the  source  of  all  governmental  authority. 
They  alone  can  amend  the  constitution. 

Senator  Gandrud  had  introduced  a  bill  to  submit  state 
wide  prohibition  to  the  people. 

This  bill  came  from  the  temperance  committee  with  two 
reports : 

Gandrud,  Vermilya  and  Lobeck  recommended  the  bill  to 
pass. 


56 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


Hilbert,    Van    Hoven,     Pauly    and    Ward     recommended 
indefinite  postponement. 

Twenty-eight  voted  to  pass  the  bill — 


Alley 

Andrews 

Benson 

Buckler 

Campbell,  W.  A. 

Gandrud 

Gillam 

Gjerset 

Hanson 

Hegnes 


Holmberg 

Jackson 

Jones 

Lende 

Lobeck 

O'Neill 

Orr 

Palmer 

Peterson,  E.  P. 

Peterson,  F.  H. 


Potter 

Putnam 

Rockne 

Rustad 

Rystrom 

Sageng 

Turnham 

Vermilya 


In  the  House  this  question  made  much  more  noise. 

When  the  county  option  bill  was  passed  Mr.  Larimore 
made  a  most  bitter  fight  against  it;  but  declared  that  he 
would  fa"Vor  a  constitutional  amendment  for  state  wide  pro- 
hibition. 

A  few  days  later  he  and  Mr.  Davis  of  Todd  county  intro- 
duced a  bill  for  a  constitutional  amendment  to  be  voted  upon 
at  the  next  election. 

At  the  time  of  its  introduction  it  looked  very  much  as  if 
such  amendment  would  pass;  but  when  the  matter  came  up 
on  March  25th  on  the  question  of  indefinite  postponement 
only  56  could  be  found  to  recommend  the  bill  to  pass. 


Adams 

Anderson 

Baker 

Bendixen 

Bernard 

Bjorge 

Bjornson 

Christianson 

Corning 

Davis 

Dealand 

Flinn 

Frye 

Gill 

Gordon 

Grant 

Guilford 

Hauser 

Hinds,  E.  R. 


Holmes 

Hompe 

Hulbert 

Indrehus 

Johnson,  M. 

Larimore 

Larson 

Lattin 

Lee 

Marwin 

Morken 

Nordgren 

Norton 

Olien 

Parker 

Peterson,  A. 

Pikop 

Pratt 

Putnam 


Sawyer 

Searls 

Sorflaten 

Southwick 

Spooner 

Stenvick 

Stevens 

Swanson 

Swenson 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

Teigen,   L.    O. 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Tollefson 

Vasaly 

Wefald 

Weld 

Wilson 

Wold 


•Seven  who  voted  against  county  option  voted  to  submit 
this  amendment:  Baker,  Davis,  E.  R.  Hinds,  Indrehus,  Lari- 
more, Sawyer  and  Swenson. 

Thirteen  who  voted  for  county  option  voted  "no"  on  this 
question:  Bjorklund,  Boehmke,  Dare,  Erikson,  Hogenson, 
J.  T.  Johnson,  Kneeland,  Konzen,  Madigan,  A.  M.  Peterson, 
Sanborn,  A.  L.  Thompson,  Warner. 

It  was  evident  that  the  House  was  in  no  mood  to  pass 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 57 

a  state-wide  prohibition  statute;   for  only  28  were  willing  to 

give  the  bill  even  a  chance  to  be  voted  on: 

Anderson  Lee  Southwick 

Baker  Marwin  Stenvick 

Bernard  Morken  Stevens 

Christianson  Nordgren  Swanson 

Corning  Norton  Teigen,  L.  O. 

Frye  Olien  Thompson,  H.  O. 

Grant  Peterson,  A.  Tollefson 

Hinds,  E.  R.  Pratt  Weld 

Hulbert  Putnam  Wilkins 

Johnson,  M.  Sawyer  Wold 

Larson  Searls 

Lattin  Sorflaten 

Against  the  Road-side  Saloon. 

For  many  years  the  people  of  many  parts  of  the  state 
have  been  trying  to  get  an  act  of  the  legislature  that  would 
prohibit  the  granting  of  licenses  for  the  road-side  saloons. 

These  saloons  are  outside  the  limits  of  police  regulation 
of  the  cities  and  villages,  and  many  of  them  have  become  the 
centers  of  crime  and  vice  far  beyond  the  imagination  of  any 
who  are  not  familiar  with  their  nightly  orgies.  Some  of  them 
have  also  become  dens  of  gambling  and  prostitution. 

In  some  places  these  roadhouses  are  fairly  respectable, 
if  saloons  can  ever  be  called  respectable;  but  most  of  them 
are  very  tough. 

Two  years  ago  the  House  passed  a  bill  by  a  very  large 
majority  prohibiting  these  road-side  saloons,  but  the  Senate 
so  amended  the  bill  that  the  board  of  county  commissioners 
might  grant  a  license  if  the  town  board  should  vote  in  favor, 
and  the  sheriff  and  county  attorney  order  it. 

The  bill  was  lost  in  conference  committee. 

In  the  session  of  1915  the  temperance  committee  of  the 
Senate  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Vibert,  divided  evenly  on  the 
same  question. 

Pauly,  Ward,  Van  Hoven  and  Hilbert  were  for  the 
road  houses. 

Vermilya,  Lobeck,  Gandrud  and  Blomgren  were  against 
them. 

The  Senate  voted .  against  all  road  houses  forty-one  to 
twenty-four  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Adams  Gillam  Peterson,  E.  P. 

Alley  Gjerset  Peterson,  F.  H. 

Andrews  Grose  Potter 

Benson  Hanson  Putnam 

Blomgren  Hegnes  Rockne 

Bonniwell  Holmberg  Rustad 

Buckler  Jackson  Rystrom 

Campbell,  W.  A.        Jones  Sageng 

Collester  Lende  Swenson 

Dunn,  R.  C.  Lobeck  Turnham 

Duxbury  Nelson  Vermilya 

Dwinnell  O'Neill  Vibert 

Gandrud  Orr  Wallace 

Gardner  Palmer 

Denegre  and  G.  M.  Peterson  did  not  vote. 


58 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Baldwin  Healy  Ries 

Callahan  Hilbert  Steffen 

Campbell,  A.  S.          Johnston  Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Carley  Knopp  Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Dunn,  W.  W.  McGarry  Van  Hoven 

Glotzbach  Millett  Ward 

Griggs  Nord  Weis 

Handlan  Pauly  Westlake 

Later,  on  March  24th,  the  Senate  passed  the  bill  by  a 
vote  of  forty-nine  to  fourteen  as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Adams  Gjerset  Peterson,   G.   M. 

Alley  Griggs  Potter 

Andrews  Hanson  Putnam 

Baldwin  Hegnes  Rockne 

Benson  Holmberg  Rustad 

Blomgren  Jackson  Rystrom 

Bonniwell  Jones  Sageng 

Buckler  Lende  Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Campbell,  W.  A.          Lobeck  Swenson 

Collester  Millett  Turnham 

Denegre  Nelson  Vermilya 

Dunn,  R.  C.  Nord  Vibert 

Duxbury  O'Neill  Wallace 

Dwinnell  Orr  Ward 

Gandrud  Palmer  Weis 

Gardner  Peterson,  E.  P. 

Gillam  Peterson,   P.   H. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 
Callahan  Hilbert  Ries 

Carley  Johnston  Steffen 

Dunn,  W.  W.  Knopp  Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Grose  McGarry  Van  Hoven 

Handlan  Pauly 

A.  S.  Campbell,  Glotzbach,  Healy  and  Westlake  did  not 
vote. 

The  house  temperance  committee,  (James  Dwyer,  chair- 
man) held  this  bill  for  about  twenty  days  without  reporting 
it  out.  This  is  five  days  more  than  the  rules  permit.  Dwyer's 
committee  was  trying  to  smother  the  bill. 

Saturday  morning,  April  10,  Paul  Guilford  moved  to  take 
the  bill  away  from  the  committee. 

The  opponents  of  temperance,  headed  by  Girling  of  Hen- 
nepin  and  McGrath  of  Ramsey  pleaded  for  time,  but  the 
House  passed  a  resolution  by  Wefald  compelling  the  com- 
mittee to  report  in  one  hour. 

Then  the  "wets"  moved  to  recess  until  1:30,  but  when 
that  time  was  up  they  still  continued  to  filibuster  by  motions 
to  adjourn,  demands  for  roll  call  and  other  methods  of  delay. 
Fred  Brown  of  Ramsey  walked  out  of  the  house  and 
could  not  be  found.  McGrath  objected  to  any  further  business 
till  all  who  had  answered  to  roll  call  were  in  their  seats. 
Brown  was  still  out  of  sight.  Speaker  Flowers  ruled  with 
McGrath  and  the  delay  continued.  Later  he  reversed  his 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


59 


ruling  and  the  call  of  the  House  was  dispensed  with,  seventy- 
five  to  twenty-four. 

This  is  about  the  way  the  vote  went  on  all  questions. 
There  were  about  thirty  members  absent.  The  temperance 
people  had  about  ten  more  than  enough  to  pass  the  bill,  but 
lacked  about  ten  of  a  two-thirds  majority  to  suspend  the 
rules. 

It  was  plain  that  the  temperance  people  could  win  in  the 
end,  but  the  "wets"  decided  to  die  hard,  and  they  used  up  an 
entire  day  in  a  wholly  useless  attempt  to  save  the  road-side 
saloon,  the  very  worst  feature  of  our  iniquitous  license  system. 

How  They  Voted. 

The  following  members  voted  against  suspending  the 
rules,  which  was  regarded  as  one  of  the  crucial  roll-calls: 
Barten,  Bessette,  Borgen,  Bouck,  Boyd,  Carmichael,  Dwyer, 
Ferrier,  Gerlich,  Oilman,  Girling,  Kuntz,  McGrath,  McLaugh- 
lin,  Minnette,  Moeller,  Nietzel,  Nimocks,  North,  Papke,  Pender- 
gast,  Pless,  Ribenack,  Rodenberg,  Seebach,  Schrooten,  Scott, 
Steen,  Welch. 

On  the  final  ballot  the  vote  stood  ninety-four  to  ten 
as  follows: 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 


Adams 

Anderson 

Baldwin 

Bendixen 

Bernard 

Bjorge 

Bjorklund 

Bjornson 

Boehmke 

Boyd 

Burrows 

Carmichael 

Christiansen 

Condon 

Corning 

Dare 

Davis 

Devoid 

Dunleavy 

Dwyer 

Ferrier 

Frye 

Gill 

Girling 

Gordon 

Grant 

Guilford 

Harrison,  H.  H. 

Harrison,  J.  M. 

Hauser 

Hinds,  E.  R. 

Hynes,  J.  H. 


Hogenson 

Holmes 

Hompe 

Hulbert 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Johnson,  M. 

Kneeland 

Knutson 

Konzen 

Larimore 

Larson 

Lattin 

Lee 

Lydiard 

McGrath 

McLaughlin 

Madigan 

Malmberg 

Marschalk 

Marwin 

Moeller 

Morken 

Mueller 

Murphy 

Nietzel 

Nimocks 

Nordgren 

North 

Norton 

Novak 

Olien 

Parker 


Peterson,  A. 

Peterson,  A.  M. 

Pikop 

Pratt 

Putnam 

Ribenack 

Rodenberg 

Sanborn 

Sawyer 

Searls 

Schrooten 

Sliter 

Smith 

Sorflaten 

Southwick 

Stenvick 

Stevens 

Swanson 

Swenson 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Tollefson 

Vasaly 

Warner 

Wefald 

Welch 

Wilson 

Wold 

Woodfill 

Mr.  Speaker 


Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


Bessette  Oilman  Scott 

Borgen  Kuntz  Steen 

Bouck  Minnette 

Gerlich  Seebacli 

Twenty-six  did  not  vote.  Of  these  Dealand,  Flinn,  Hafften, 
Spooner,  Stoetzel,  Syverson  and  Weld  had  been  excused  for 
the  day.  All  the  others  had  answered  at  roll  call  in  the  morn- 
ing. Mr.  Indrehus  had  been  excused  at  noon.  This  left  the 
following  unaccounted  for:  Baker,  Barton,  Brown,  Erickson, 
Greene,  Haislet,  Lennon,  Leonard,.  Miner,  Nelson,  Papke,  Pen- 
dergast,  Pless,  Sudheimer,  A.  L.  Thompson,  Thornton  and 
Wilkins. 

Only  ten  stood  by  the  roadhouse  to  the  last. 

The  So-Called   Boxing   Bill. 

This  bill  professed  to  do  three  things. 

First,  to  encourage  clean  and  legitimate  sport  by  legal- 
izing "ten  round  exhibitions  of  the  manly  art  of  self  defense." 

Second,  to  create  a  state  Athletic  Commission  to  supervise 
and  regulate  all  such  exhibitions. 

Third,  to  turn  over  ten  per  cent  of  the  gross  proceeds 
of  these  matches  to  the  state  to  be  used  in  the  fight  against 
the  white  plague. 

But 

"Ten  round  exhibitions  of  the  manly  art  of  self  defense" 
are  not  now  prohibited  by  law.  The  present  law  in  no  way 
interferes  with  any  such  proper  sport. 

The  present  law  does  interfere  with  any  thing  in  the 
way  of  a  prize  fight. 

The  so-called  boxing  bill,  as  first  drawn  and  introduced, 
did  specifically  repeal  the  present  law  against  prize  fights, 
but  this  feature  was  cut  out  of  the  bill. 

So  it  would  seem  that  if  there  is  any  field  at  all  for  its 
operation  as  finally  passed,  it  creates  a  state  commission  to 
license  and  regulate  "exhibitions"  that  are  now  legal  and 
need  no  regulation. 

Would  the  law  empower  the  proposed  commission  to 
step  in  and  regulate  such  exhibitions  in  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  or 
athletic  clubs  or  physical  culture  leagues? 

If  not  where  would  be  its  field  of  operations?  Any  right 
and  proper  "exhibitions"  need  no  license  nor  regulation. 

Prize  fights  should  not  be  licensed  nor  regulated  nor  even 
permitted  at  all. 

It  looks  very  much  as  if  the  only  standing  room  this 
commission  could  possibly  have  would  be  to  wedge  its  way 
in  between  illegal  prize  fights  and  perfectly  proper 
"exhibitions." 

It  seems  plain  that  the  bill  was  intended  to  open  the 
door  to  "exhibitions"  that  are  not  now  permitted  by  law.  If 
not  why  were  the  three  sections  of  the  existing  law  prohibit- 
ing prize  fights  specifically  repealed? 

The  State  a  Partner. 

But  no  matter  what  the  law  as  finally  passed  may  do  for 
the  prize  fighters,  it  does  put  the  state  into  partnership  with 
whatever  exhibitions  would  be  legal  and  permitted  under  its 
provisions. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    /fl/.T 61 

Is  this  wise? 

Ought  the  state  to  interfere  with,  and  place  a  special  tax 
upon  proper  sport? 

On  the  other  hand  ought  the  state  to  legalize  and  share 
in  the  proceeds  of  prize  fights? 

The  advocates  of  this  bill  must  hang  themselves  on  one 
or  the  other  horn  of  this  dilemma. 

The  Methods  of  Its  Promoters. 

It  was  common  talk  about  the  capitol  that  the  methods 
employed  by  the  promoters  of  this  bill  were  the  most  brutal 
and  scandalous. 

One  clean  and  honest  member  who  voted  for  the  bill 
declared  that  he  was  forced  to  do  so  by  threats  that,  if  he  did 
not,  none  of  his  bills  would  be  permitted  to  pass.  Several 
others  admitted  substantially  the  same  thing. 

Before  passing  the  House  the  bill  was  amended  as 
follows: 

First,  Corning  moved  to  reduce  the  appropriation  for 
the  use  of  the  commission  from  $3,500  to  $1,200,  and  to 
increase  the  percentage  of  gross  receipts  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Tuberculosis  Sanitoria  from  seven  to  ten  per  cent. 

Second.  Davis  moved  to  amend  so  the  law  should  apply 
only  to  the  three  large  cities. 

Third,  Madigan  moved  to  strike  out  the  section  which 
specifically  repealed  the  existing  statutes  against  prize  fights. 

Moeller  and  the  friends  of  the  bill  were  so  eager  to 
pass  it  that  they  accepted  all  these  amendments. 

As  it  passed  the  House  it  did  not  mean  very  much,  but 
it  never  could  have  passed  in  its  original  form. 

Here  is  the  vote  on  final  passage  seventy-five  to  forty- 
seven. 

Those  who  voted   in'  the  affirmative  were: 
Adams  Gordon  Novak 

Baldwin  Greene  Papke 

Bessette  Harrison,  H.  H.          Pendergast 

Bjorge  Harrison,  J.   M.          Peterson,  A.  M. 

Bjorklund  Hynes,  J.  H.  Pless 

Boehmke  Hompe  Rodenberg 

Borgen  Kneeland  Sanborn 

Bouck  Konzen  Sawyer 

Boyd  Kuntz  Searls 

Brown  Larimore  Scott 

Burrows  Lennon  Sorflaten 

Carmichael  Leonard  Spooner 

Condon  Lydiard  Steen 

Corning  McGrath  Stenvick 

Dare  McLaughlin  Stoetzel 

Devoid  Marschalk  Sudheimer 

Dunleavy  Miner  Syverson 

Dwyer  Minnette  Teigen,  A.  F. 

Erickson  Moeller  Thornton 

Ferrier  Mueller  Vasaly 

Flinn  Murphy  Warner 

Gerlich  Nelson  Welch 

Gill  Nietzel        .  Wilkins 

Gilman   <  Nimocks  Woodflll 

Girling  North  Mr.  Speaker 


62  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    19J5 


Those  who 

voted  in  the  negative 

were  : 

Anderson 

Indrehus 

Putnam 

Bendixen 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Seebach 

Bjornson 

Johnson,  M. 

Schrooten 

Christiansen 

Knutson 

Sliter 

Davis 

Larson 

Smith 

Dealand 

Lattin 

Southwick 

Frye 

Lee 

Stevens 

Grant 

Madigan 

Swanson 

Guilford 

Morken 

Swenson 

Hafften 

Nordgren 

Teigen,  L.  O. 

Haislet 

Norton 

Thompson,  A.  L. 

Hauser 

Olien 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Hinds,  E.  R. 

Parker 

Tollefson 

Hogenson 

Peterson,  A. 

Wilson 

Holmes 

Pikop 

Wold 

Hulbert 

Pratt 

Eight  members  did  not  vote:  Baker,  Barton,  Bernard, 
Malmberg,  Marwin,  Ribenack,  Wefald,  Welch. 

In  the  Senate  it  was  plain  that  the  advocates  of  this  bill 
were  trading  with  the  opponents  of  the  Mayo  proposition. 

The  great  objection  to  the  Mayo  affiliation  scheme  was 
that  it  would  put  the  state  into  partnership  with  a  private 
enterprise. 

The  boxing  bill  did  the  same. 

And  yet  the  following  twenty-three  Senators  who  voted 
to  put  the  state  into  partnership  with  the  boxing  and  sparring 
industry,  voted  against  state  partnership  with  the  Mayos: 
Adams,  Andrews,  Baldwin,  Bonniwell,  Callahan,  Wm.  A. 
Campbell,  Carley,  W.  W.  Dunn,  Gardner,  Glotzbach,  Griggs, 
Grose,  Handlan,  Hilbert,  Jackson,  Knopp,  Millett,  Nord, 
Pauly,  G.  M.  Peterson,  Ries,  Turnham  and  Van  Hoven. 

Surely  here  is  something  that  needs  explanation.  The 
following  eleven  senators  consistently  voted  for  both  part- 
nerships : 

Buckler,  A.  S.  Campbell,  Denegren  R.  C.  Dunn,  Healy, 
Johnston,  Jones,  O'Neil,  Steffen,  Vibert  and  Westlake. 

The  following  thirteen  senators  voted  consistently  against 
both  partnerships: 

Alley,  Blomgren,  Gillam,  Gjerset,  Hanson,  Holmberg, 
Lobeck,  Rustad,  Rystrom,  G.  H.  Sullivan,  J.  D.  Sullivan,  Swen- 
son, Weis. 

These  thirteen  were  consistent  not  only  with  themselves 
but  also  with  the  principle  that  the  state  ought  not  to 
become  a  partner  in  private  enterprise  of  any  kind. 

Several  of  those  who  voted  against  the  bill  to  prohibit 
the  Mayo  affiliation  can  easily  defend  their  course  on  the 
ground  that  the  Regents  had  passed  a  resolution  to  the 
effect  that  they  had  no  intention  or  desire  to  enter  into  any 
such  permanent  arrangement. 

After  the  friends  of  the  boxing  bill  had  defeated  an 
amendment  to  cut  out  the  state's  share  in  the  proceeds,  the 
bill  passed  the  Senate  thirty-five  to  thirty-two. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Adams  Bonniwell  Campbell,  A.  S. 

Andrews  Buckler  Campbell,  W.  A. 

Baldwin  Callahan  Carley 


The    Minnesota    Legislature   'of    1915  63 


Denegre 

Hilbert 

Pauly 

Dunn,  R.   C. 

Jackson 

Peterson,  G.  M. 

Dunn,  W.  W. 

Johnston 

Ries 

Gardner 

Jones 

Steffen 

Glotzbach 

Knopp 

Turnham 

Griggs 

McGarry 

Van  Hoven 

Grose 

Millett 

Vibert 

Handlan 

Nord 

Westlake 

Healy 

O'Neill 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 

Alley                              Holmberg  Rustad 

Benson                         Lende  Rystrom 

Blomgren                      Lobeck  Sageng 

Collester                      Nelson  Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Duxbury                        Orr  Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Dwinnell                       Palmer  Swenson 

Gandrud                       Peterson,  "E.  P.  Vermilya 

Gillam                           Peterson,  F.  H.  Wallace 

Gjerset                         Potter  .  Ward 

Hanson                         Putnam  Weis 
Hegnes                          Rockne 

After  this  bill  had  passed  both  houses  the  Governor  was 

very  strongly  urged  to  veto  it,  but  he  signed  it  on  the  last 
day,  and  so  the  bill  became  a  law. 

CHAPTER  IX. 
EFFICIENCY  AND  ECONOMY. 

These  are  good  words  to  conjure  with,  but  they  may 
mean  much  or  little. 

Everyone  admits  that  the  machinery  for  the  adminis- 
tration of  our  state  government  is  neither  efficient  nor 
economical. 

For  fifty  years  or  more  there  has  been  a  steady  growth 
in  the  wrong  direction. 

Board  after  board,  commission  after  commission,  has 
been  created,  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  given  large 
powers,  but  responsible  to  no  one. 

These  boards  and  commissions  serve  without  pay  except 
necessary  expenses;  but  each  has  its  paid  secretary  and 
large  number  of  assistants  and  workers/ 

In  the  nature  of  things  each  is  all  the  while  on  the  alert 
to  enlarge  the  field  of  its  operations,  and  to  get  from  the 
state  all  the  money  possible. 

Such  a  system  is  bound  to  be  both  inefficient  and  ex- 
travagant; and  in  both  these  directions  our  state  admin- 
istration has  reached  a  high  degree  of  perfection. 

What   Is  the   Remedy? 

Former  Governor  Eberhardt  appointed  another  unau- 
thorized, unpaid  commission  of  thirty  more  or  less  promi- 
nent men,  and  asked  them  to  investigate  and  report.  Some 
of  them  did  little  or  nothing,  and  some  of  them  worked  hard 
and  faithfully. 

The  product  of  their  labors  was  a  very  complete  report 
in  the  form  of  a  bill  for  an  act  pretty  thoroly  upsetting  and 
making  over  all  that  part  of  our  state  government  having 
to  do  with  the  administration  of  our  public  affairs. 


64 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Nearly  all  the  boards  and  commissions  were  abolished 
and  a  very  beautiful  and  complete  plan  was  adopted,  cor- 
relating all  the  parts,  each  department  under  a  high  paid 
head  appointed  by  the  Governor  and  responsible  to  him. 
This  plan  gave  the  Governor  very  great  power  and  respon- 
sibility. 

The   Good    In    It. 

Now  concentration  of  responsibility  is  very  good.  It 
is  well  that  the  people  know  who  is  running  things. 

The  plan  also  established  a  good  budget  system  requiring 
all  departments  of  the  state  government  to  report  their  needs 
for  money  to  the  Governor,  and  requiring  him  to  submit 
all  these  estimates  to  the  legislature  early  in  the  session, 
thus  allowing  ample  time  for  full  consideration  and  intelli- 
gent action. 

Another  good  feature  was  a  fairly  well  worked  out 
civil  service  system  which  would  prevent  the  Governor  and 
the  heads  of  departments  from  filling  the  service  with  hench- 
men and  politicians. 

Then  the  commission  told  us  that  we  must  take  their 
plan  just  as  it  was — all  or  none. 

Objections. 

Of  course  such  a  plan  as  this  would  arouse  objections. 
And  there  were  plenty  of  them  right  soon — some  valid  and 
some  senseless,  but  plenty  of  them. 

I.  The   Board   of  Control. 

Perhaps  the  most  efficient  part  of  our  state  administra- 
tion is  the  board  of  control.  It  has  always  been  composed 
of  able,  honest  and  capable  men.  It  has  never  known  politics. 
It  has  appointed  for  merit  and  removed  for  cause,  never 
asking  nor  knowing  the  party  of  the  applicant. 

The  efficiency  and  economy  bill  abolished  this  board, 
and  turned  over  its  work  to  one  commissioner  appointed  by 
the  Governor  for  two  years  only.  Many  objectors  thought 
that  this  looked  very  much  like  politics. 

II.  The    Public    Examiner. 

This  bill  made .  the  public  examiner  subordinate  to  the 
state  auditor.  Now  the  public  examiner  has  to  check  up 
the  accounts  of  the  state  auditor.  Is  is  right  to  set  a  hired 
man  to  checking  up  his  boss? 

If  the  constitution  could  be  so  amended  as  to  take  the 
land  department  and  all  other  public  business  away  from 
the  auditor,  leaving  him  with  no  duties  except  as  a  state 
accounting  officer,  then  he  could  be,  and  would  be,  the  logical 
public  examiner,  but  until  this  can  be  done  the  public  ex- 
aminer should  not  be  subject  to  any  department  whose  ac- 
counts he  must  check  up. 

III.     The  Natural  Order. 

You  can't  make  a  full  grown  man  in  a  minute. 

You  can't  rip  your  state  government  from  top  to  bottom 
and  put  it  together  again  at  one  stroke. 

Things  don't  come  about  that  way.  Changes  come 
slowly,  generally  one  at  a  time. 

There  were  other  objections.     Some  thought  it  gave  the 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 65 

Governor  too  much  power — too  much  opportunity  to  build  up  a 
great  political  machine.  Some  did  not  like  Mr.  Spooner, 
who  was  chairman  of  the  house  committee  that  had  the  bill 
in  charge.  Nearly  every  member  felt  that  the  bill  tried  to  do 
too  much  at  once.  Most  of  them  had  too  little  time  to  study 
it,  and  were  not  willing  to  vote  for  a  thing  they  did  not 
understand. 

The  more  the  bill  was  discussed  the  less  chance  it  seemed 
to  have.  The  harder  Mr.  Spooner  worked  to  make  its  pro- 
visions known,  the  more  unpopular  it  became  until  finally, 
by  a  sort  of  general  consent,  it  died  without  ever  coming 
to  a  real  test. 

Even  a  second  message  from  the  Governor  urging  its 
passage  could  not  save  it. 

The   Seven   Sisters. 

When  it  began  to  look  as  if  the  big  efficiency  and  economy 
bill  could  not  command  much  support,  Representative  Gor- 
don moved  for  the  appointment  of  a  special  committee  to 
draft  and  present  to  the  legislature  such  bills  as  they  might 
think  practical  for  correcting  abuses  in  the  administration 
of  the  state  government. 

This  committee  brought  in  seven  simple  bills,  each  de- 
signed to  correct  an  acknowledged  fault. 

The   Budget. 

I.  First  a   bill   establishing  a  complete   budget   system. 
This  bill  passed  the  House  with  only  Mr.  Haislet  against  it. 
Later  it  passed  the  Senate  and  is  now  the  law  of  the  state. 
Thus  is  one  of  the  greatest  defects  in  our  state  government 
corrected. 

Game   and    Fish. 

II.  Second    a   bill    abolishing   the    game    and    fish    com- 
mission,  and    turning   over   its   duties   to   one   commissioner 
appointed  by  the  Governor.     Only  31  voted  against  this  bill. 
Bjornson  Hynes,  J.  H.  Ribenack 

Bouck  Kneeland  Rodenberg 

Boyd  Kuntz  Schrooten 

Carmichael  Larimore  Sorflaten 

Devoid  Lennon  Spooner 

Dwyer  Lydiard  Steen 

Ferrier  Miner  -Syverson 

Gerlich  Nietzel  Thornton 

Haislet  Nimocks  Woodfill 

Harrison,  J.  M.  North 

Hinds,  E.  R.  Olien 

The  Senate  passed  this  bill  and  the  Governor  signed  it. 
Hotel    Inspector. 

III.  Third  a  bill  to  abolish  the  office  of  hotel  inspector 
and    turn   over   the   duties   of   that   office   to   the   dairy   and 
food   department.      Only   nine   voted   against  this   bill. 
Brown  Dwyer  Hynes,  J.  H. 
Carmichael                  Haislet  McLaughlin 
Condon                          Harrison,  J.  M.  Miner 

This  bill  was  passed  by  the  Senate  but  vetoed  by  the 
Governor  after  the  legislature  had  adjourned. 


66 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  hotel  inspector's  office 
is  merely  a  place  where  hotel  and  restaurant  keepers  mail 
their  fees  for  inspection,  without  getting  much  inspection. 

State   Capitol   and   Grounds. 

IV.  A  bill  to  put  the  State  Capitol  and  grounds  under 
the  board  of  control.     Only  15  voted  against  this  bill. 
Boyd  Hynes,  J.  H.  Nietzel 
Carmichael                  Indrehus  North 

Dwyer  Lennon  Rodenberg 

Gerlich  Madigan  Schrooten 

Haislet  Miner  Steen 

In  the  Senate  Mr.  Duxbury's  committee  reported  against 
this  bill  and  he  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  45  to  18. 

Oil    Inspection. 

V.  A  bill  to  abolish  the  department  of  oil  inspection  and 
impose  the  duties  thereof  upon  the  dairy  and  food  commis- 
sion.    This  bill  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  74  to  26. 

There  were  strong  objections  to  this  bill. 

First,  there  were  many  who  wanted  to  abolish  oil  in- 
spection entirely.  Inspection  is  wholly  useless,  now  that 
gasoline  is  worth  about  twice  as  much  as  kerosene.  No 
oil  refiner  would  leave  any  light  explosive  oil  in  kerosene. 

Second,  the  cost  of  inspection  is  now  borne  by  the  oil 
companies,  and  if  it  should  be  done  by  the  dairy  and  food 
department  it  would  be  an  expense  to  the  state.  The  .Senate 
sustained  the  majority  report  of  the  Duxbury  committee 
by  35  to  23. 

Mr.  Christiansen  had  introduced  a  very  well  considered 
bill  to  abolish  oil  inspection  and  provide  penalties  for  the 
sale  of  impure  or  adulterated  oil. 

This  was  the  most  sensible  proposition  of  all,  as  it  did 
away  entirely  with  the  whole  grafting  political  machine  that 
has  so  long  disgraced  the  state  under  the  pretense  of  oil 
inspection. 

But  many  house  members  thought  it  would  be  better  to 
put  this  work  under  the  control  of  the  dairy  and  food  de- 
partment and  leave  that  department  to  use  its  judgment  as 
to  inspection  and  to  employ  its  regular  force  of  inspectors 
to  do  such  work  as  might  be  required. 

This  bill  received  59  votes  but  was  lost  because  it  takes 
66  votes  to  pass  a  bill. 

Fire  Marshal. 

VI.  A  bill  to  give  the  Insurance  Commissioner  control 
over  fires  and   explosives  and  to  abolish  the  office  of   Fire 
Marshal. 

This  bill  passed  the  house  67  to  47;  one  more  than 
enough  but  was  recalled  the  next  day  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Stoetzel. 

The  friends  of  the  Governor  were  active  in  opposition  to 
this  bill;  that  helped  to  recall  it,  but  there  were  others  who 
did  not  like  the  Insurance  Commissioner,  S.  D.  Works;   and, 
were  determined  to  give  him  as  little  power  as  possible. 
State  Inspectors. 

VII.  A  bill  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  State  in- 
spectors, one  or  more  to  each  senatorial, district,  according 


The    Minnesota-   Legislature    of    1915 67 

to  the  size  of  the  district  and  the  work  to  be  done.  These  in- 
spectors were  to  have  the  same  duties  as  are  now  per- 
formed by  all  the  various  inspectors  who  now  travel  at 
state  expense.  This  included  game  wardens,  forest  rangers, 
fire  marshals,  factory  inspectors,  dairy  and  food  inspectors, 
hotel  inspectors,  etc. 

The  bill  lacked  eight  votes  of  passing.  The  vote  stood 
58  to  53. 

This  bill  had  been  amended  by  Mr.  Pratt  to  leave  out 
forest  rangers. 

Mr.  McGrath  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  whereby  the 
bill  was  lost,  and  his  motion  carried.  On  motion  of  Mr. 
Warner  it  was  then  placed  on  the  calendar  subject  to  amend- 
ment, but  was  not  reached  and  died  there. 

Thus  a  start  was  made  in  a  modest  and  quiet  way  to- 
ward remodeling  our  state  administration  and  placing  it  on 
a  more  rational  basis. 

The   Carley   Resolution. 

Senator  Carley  introduced  a  resolution  providing  for  a 
commission  of  eleven  members  to  be  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor to  recommend  reforms  in  the  State  administration. 
Later  this  resolution  was  amended  on  motion  of  Sen- 
ator Duxbury,  making  the  commission  to  be  composed  of  four 
to  be  appointed  from  the  House  by  the  speaker,  four  from 
the  Senate  by  the  lieutenant  governor  and  three  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor. 

This  resolution  passed  both  Senate  and  House  by  large 
majorities. 

CHAPTER  X. 

PROPOSED    LAWS  THAT   FAILED. 

Efficiency  and  economy  commission's  bill  to  reorganize 
state  civil  administration. 

Woman  suffrage  amendment  to  the  state  constitution. 

Prohibition,   statutory  arid   constitutional. 

Restoration  of  capital  punishment  as  first  degree  murder 
penalty. 

State  census. 

Limiting  expenditures  of  iron  range  cities  in  the  interest 
of  the  mine  owners. 

St.    Louis    county    division .  into    two   counties. 

Constitutional  convention  to  revise  organic  law. 

Recall  amendment  to  the  state  constitution. 

"Blue  sky"  legislation  to  regulate  sale  of  securities. 

Bill  aimed  at  trading  in  grain  "futures"  in  Minnesota. 

Legalizing  party  conventions  to  recommend  candidates 
for  primaries. 

Bill  amending  the  Minneapolis  union  station  act  passed 
by  1913  legislature. 

Abolishing  state  tuberculosis  sanatorium  commission. 

Abolishing  state  fire  mashal's  office. 

Abolishing  the  oil  inspection  department  of  the  state 
government. 

Placing  care  of  capitol  buildings  under  state  board  of 
control. 

Bill  to  prohibit  linking  of  university  meuical  school  with 
Mayo  foundation,  lost  in  the  House. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    o/    1915 


Repeal  of  Minneapolis  civil  service  law,  killed  in  Senate. 
Amendment  of  Minneapolis  civil  service  law,  lost  in  house. 
Anti-tipping  bill,  killed  in  the  Senate. 
Minneapolis  housing  act,  desired  by  Civic  and  Commerce 
association. 

Abolishing  hotel  inspection  department.     (Vetoed.) 
"Blue  milk"  bill,  reducing  butter  fat  standard  of  milk. 

Spoiling  the  Merit  System. 

The  Legislature  of  1913  passed  a  law  establishing  the 
merit  system  in  the  civil  "service  of  the  city  of  Minneapolis. 

St.  Paul  and  Duluth  had  provided  for  this  system  in  their 
new  home  rule  charters. 

The  merit  system  means  death  to  the  spoils  system. 

Ward  heelers  and  party  clackers  have  no  special  privilege 
in  securing  city  employment. 

Like  all  others  they  must  stand  or  fall  according  to  their 
fitness  for  the  jobs  they  seek. 

The  Other  Side. 

Yet  this  question  is  not  all  one  sided. 

Civil  service  commissions  and  examiners  are  very  prone 
to  regard  mere  book  learning  in  picking  men  for  public 
employment.  Their  rules  are  often  arbitrary  and  technical. 

Probably  in  most  cases  book  learning  is  good,  yet  it  is 
far  from  being  the  only  qualification;  and  it  may  easily  hap- 
pen that  much  bookishness  is  worse  than  none.  The  man 
who  knows  nothing  but  books,  is  very  poorly  fitted  for  any- 
thing else. 

Both  the  spoils  system  and  the  so-called  "merit  system" 
are  about  equally  apt  to  fill  the  services  with  fossils  and 
barnacles;  and  once  in,  it  is  harder  to  get  them  out  under 
civil  service  than  under  the  other  system. 

The  Pension  System. 

Another  evil  of  the  civil  service  system  is  that  it  fosters 
the  pension  system. 

It  tends  to  establish  an  office  holding  class,  and  to  retire 
them  on  pension  when  they  can  no  longer  do  their  work. 

The  pension  system  is  vicious. 

Why  should  the  workers  be  burdened  with  taxes  for  the 
support  of  superannuated  clerks  and  bookkeepers  and  other 
public  job  holders? 

Why  not  pension  carpenters,  plumbers,  farm  hands  and 
hired  girls? 

The   Remedy. 

What  then  is  the  remedy? 

Shall  we  abolish  the  civil  service  and  restore  the  spoils 
system? 

I  .think  not.  And  yet  this  extreme  is  not  much  worse 
than  the  other. 

Make  the  examinations  practical,  cut  out  the  frills  and 
red  tape.  Give  heads  of  departments  reasonable  discretion 
in  choosing  and  discharging.  They  will  not  be  very  likely  to 
discharge  without  cause  so  long  as  they  are  powerless  to 
fill  the  places  with  friends  or  henchmen. 

Above  all  things  no  man  in  the  civil  service  should  be 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 69 

deprived  of  his  right  of  citizenship.  Of  course  he  must  not 
neglect  his  duties  to  do  party  work  or  run  for  office,  but  the 
mere  fact  of  filing  for  nomination  or  attending  political  meet- 
ings should  not  be  sufficient  reason  for  discharging  a  faith- 
ful public  servant.  The  poor  man  in  the  ranks  should  have 
the  same  right  in  this  respect  as  the  President,  the  Cabinet 
Minister,  the  Governor  or  the  Mayor,  and  any  civil  service 
system  that  denies  these  rights  needs  amending. 

Early  in  the  session  James  Dwyer  introduced  a  bill  to  do 
away  with  the  merit  system  entirely,  and  eleven  of  the  Hen- 
nepin  delegation  in  the  House  lined  up  in  favor  of  it. 

Perhaps,  if  there  had  been  no  other  way  to  get  rid  of 
the  pedantry  and  other  admitted  evils  of  the  system  this 
plan  should  not  be  too  severly  condemned. 

But  there  is  another  way. 

Norton  and  Marwin  brought  forth  a  bill  amending  the 
civil  service  act — cutting  out  its  objectionable  features,  and 
making  it  more  rational  and  workable. 

But  Dwyer  and  the  spoils  men  refused  to  yield,  and 
insisted  on  going  back  to  the  spoils  system. 

Here  is  the  line  up  of  the  Hennepin  House  members. 

For  the  Dwyer  Bill:  Dwyer,  Wilson,  Dunleavy,  Lennon, 
Nimocks,  Condon,  Devoid,  Swanson,  Lydiard,  Girling  and 
Larimore. 

For  the  Norton  and  Marwin  Bill:  Norton,  Marwin, 
Kneeland,  Sawyer,  Guilford,  Harrison  and  Hulbert. 

On  Friday,  Feb.  19,  the  Minneapolis  civil  service  ques- 
tion came  up  in  the  House — on  the  question  of  adopting  the 
majority  or  minority  report  of  the  committee  on  cities. 

The  majority  report  favored  the  Dwyer  bill  to  abolish  the 
merit  system  in  Minneapolis  entirely;  whereas  the  minority 
report,  fathered  by  Thos.  Kneeland,  favored  the  Norton^  and 
Marwin  amendments  to  improve  the  service  by  getting  rid 
of  its  most  objectionable  features  and  putting  it  on  a  more 
fair  and  common  sense  basis. 

The  contest  lasted  for  over  two  hours. 

Kneeland,  Sawyer,  Marwin,  Guilford,  Harrison  and  others 
defended  the  merit  system. 

Dwyer,  Lydiard,  Girling,  Lennon  and  Dunleavy  declared 
the  whole  system  vicious — "conceived  in  sin  and  born  in 
iniquity,"  as  Lennon  put  it. 

It  is  very  unfortunate  that  the  legislature  must  be  annoyed 
and  burdened  with  such  purely  local  matters;  but  as  long  as 
the  people  of  Minneapolis  fail  to  adopt  a  Home  Rule  Charter 
their  local  affairs  will  have  to  be  thrashed  out  in  every  session 
of  the  legislature. 

Many  honest  country  members  have  no  means  of  knowing 
the  real  merits  of  these  local  contests  and  frequently  vote 
in  a  way  they  would  not  if  they  could  know  all  the  facts. 

On  the  final  line  up  the  vote  stood  as  follows. 

For  the  Norton  and  Marwin  plan,  forty-eight: 
Adams  Bjornson  Grant 

Anderson  Christiansen  Guilford 

Bendixen  Corning  Harrison,  J.  M. 

Bernard  Dealand  Hauser 

Bjorge  Frye  Hogenson 

Bjorklund  Gordon  Hompe 


70 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Hulbert  Morken  Sawyer 

Indrehus  Nordgren  Searls 

Johnson,  M.  Norton  Southwick 

Kneeland  Olien  Stenvick 

Larson  Parker  Teigen,  L.  O. 

Lattin  Peterson,  A.  Thompson,  A.  L. 

Lee  Pikop  Tollefson 

Madigan  Pratt  Warner 

Marwin  Putnam  Wefald 

Minnette  Sanborn  Weld 

For  the  Dwyer  bill,  fifty-five: 

Baldwin  Knutson  Rodenberg 

Barten  Kuntz  Seebach 

Bessette  Larimore  Schrooten 

Borgen  Lennon  Smith 

Bouck  Leonard  Sorflaten 

Boyd  Lydiard  Steen 

Carmichael  McGrath  Stevens 

Condon  McLaughlin  .Stoetzel 

Davis  Malmberg  Sudheimer 

Devoid  Miner  Swanson 

Dunleavy  Nelson  Swenson 

Dwyer  Nietzel  Syverson 

Ferrier  Nimocks  Welch 

Flinn  North  Wilkins 

Gerlich  Novak  Wold 

Girling  Papke  Woodfill 

Hafften  Pendergast  Mr.  Speaker 

Haislet  Pless 

Hynes,  J.  H.  Ribenack 

Mr.  Sorflaten  saw  his  mistake  a  few  minutes  after  the 
thing  was  over,  but  it  was  too  late  to  change  his  vote. 

Later  the  Senate  passed  the  bill  introduced  by  Wm.  A. 
Campbell  reforming  the  Minneapolis  system  along  the  lines 
of  the  Norton  and  Marwin  amendments. 

So  when  the  Dwyer  bill  came  up  in  the  House  on  Apr. 
9,  the  situation  was  decidely  mixed. 

The  Senate  had  cut  out  the  most  glaring  evils  of  the 
Minneapolis  system;  but  Dwyer,  Lennon  and  Dunleavy  were 
determined  to  restore  the  spoils  system. 

The  bill  finally  passed  seventy-two  to  forty. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 
Baker  Dunleavy  Konzen 

Baldwin  Dwyer  Kuntz 

Barten  Flinn  Larimore 

Bendixen  Frye  Lennon 

Bessette  Gerlich  Leonard 

Boehmke  Gill  Lydiard 

Borgen  Gilman  McGrath 

Bouck  Girling  McLaughlin 

Boyd  Greene  Madigan 

Brown  'Hafften  Malmberg 

Burrows  Harrison,  H.  H.         Marschalk 

Carmichael  Hinds,  E.  R.  Moeller 

Condon  Hynes,  J.  H.  Murphy 

Davis  Johnson,  M.  Nietzel 

Devoid  Knutson  Nimocks 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 


71 


North 

Schrooten 

Teigen,  A.  F. 

Novak 

Steen 

Thornton 

Papke 

Stenvick 

Warner 

Pendergast 

Stevens 

Welch 

Pikop 

Stoetzel 

Wilkins 

Pless 

Sudheimer 

Wilson 

Ribenack 

Swanson 

Wold 

Rodenberg 

Swenson 

Woodfill 

Seebach 

Syverson 

Mr.  -Speaker 

Those  who 

voted  in  the  negative 

were: 

Adams 

Hauser 

Peterson,  A. 

Anderson 

Holmes 

Pratt 

Bernard 

Hompe 

Putnam 

Bjorge 

Hulbert 

Sanborn 

Bjorklund 

Indrehus 

Sawyer 

Bjornson 

Johnson,  J.  T. 

Searls 

Christiansen 

Kneeland 

Sorflaten 

Corning 

Larson 

Thompson,  A.  L. 

Dealand 

Lattin 

Thompson,  H.  O. 

Erickson 

Lee 

Tollefson 

Gordon 

Marwin 

Vasaly 

Grant 

Mueller 

Weld 

Guilford 

Norton 

Harrison,  J.  M. 

Olien 

The  following  eighteen  did  not  vote:  Dare,  Ferrier, 
Haislet,  Hogenson,  Miner,  Minnette,  Morken,  Wilson,  Nord- 
gren,  Parker,  Peterson,  A.  M.  -Scott,  Sliter,  Southwick,  Spooner, 
L.  O.  Teigen,  Wefald. 

In  the  Senate  the  contest  was  more  intense  if  possible 
than  in  the  House,  but  less  spectacular.  Pauly  and  Dwinnell 
were  the  chief  actors,  and  Dwinnell  did  make  a  strong  impres- 
sion. His  keen  analysis  of  the  situation,  his  unmasking  of 
the  forces  behind  the  bill,  the  way  he  scored  the  spoils  system 
which  they  sought  to  re-establjsh,  all  helped  defeat  the  bill 
and  save  the  merit  system. 

Pauly's  oratory  was  unavailing.  He  could  only  master 
twenty-six  votes. 

Wm.  A.  Campbell  was  in  a  peculiar  dilemma.  He  had 
declared  at  two  mass  meetings  in  his  district  that  he  would 
vote  to  repeal  the  civil  service  law  if  it  could  not  be 
amended.  His  amendments,  which  the  Senate  had  passed 
were  held  up  in  the  House  by  Dwyer  and  others  who  were 
determined  not  to  amend  but  to  repeal.  He  would  have  been 
justified  in  voting  against  the  bill,  but  he  stuck  to  the  let- 
ter of  his  pledge  and  voted  yes. 

The  bill  was  defeated  twenty-six  to  thirty-four. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were: 


Baldwin 
Benson 
Callahan 
Campbell,  W.  A. 
Collester 
Dunn,  R.  C. 
Dunn,  W.  W. 
Glotzbach 
Griggs 


Grose 

Handlan 

Healy 

Hegnes 

Hilbert 

Johnston 

Knopp 

McGarry 

Nord 


Pauly 

Ries 

Steffen 

Sullivan,  G.  H. 

Sullivan,  J.  D. 

Turnham 

Van  Hoven 

Weis 


72 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were: 

Adams  Hanson                         Putnam 

Alley  Holmberg        .            Rustad 

Andrews  Jackson                        Rystrom 

Blomgren  Lende                           Sageng 

Campbell,  A.   S.         Lobeck                         Swenson 

Carley  Nelson                          Vermilya 

Denegre  O'Neill                          Vibert 

Duxbury  Orr                                Wallace 

Dwinnell  Palmer                         Ward 

Gandrud  Peterson,   E.   P.         Westlake 

Gillam  Peterson,  F.  H. 

Gjerset  Potter 

Seven  senators  refused  to  vote:  Bonniwell,  Buckler, 
Gardner,  Jones,  Millett,  G.  M.  Peterson,  Rockne. 

Medical   Legislation. 

For  many  years  the  American  Medical  Association  has 
been  trying  to  secure  legislation  both  in  Congress  and  in  the 
state  legislatures  that  would  shut  out  all  healers  of  the  sick 
except  the  regular  doctors. 

Early  in  the  session  of  1915  a  bill  was  introduced  by  Dr. 
Andrews,  senator  from  Blue  Earth  county  and  by  Mr.  Sawyer 
in  the  House  which  prohibited  even  the  Christian  Scientists 
and  all  other  drugless  healers  from  the  practice  of  the  heal- 
ing art.  An  identical  bill  was  introduced  in  several  other 
states. 

This  bill  aroused  a  most  tremendous  opposition.  The 
Christian  Scientists  particularly  were  most  bitter  in  their 
denunciation  of  the  tyranny  of  such  a  law.  The  authors 
withdrew  the  bill  and  the  Christian  Scientists  were  appeased. 

Later,  on  March  15,  Senators  Hilbert  and  Andrews  intro- 
duced another  bill. 

A  Bill. 

For  an  act  entitled,  "An  act  requiring  persons  desiring  to 
practice  any  system  of  healing,  curing  or  relieving  any  human 
disease,  ailment,  abnormality  or  infirmity,  other  than  the 
several  schools  or  systems  now  recognized  and  regulated  by 
law,  to  procure  license  therefor  from  the  state  board  of  medi- 
cal examiners,  and  prescribing  the  method  of  granting  and 
revoking  such  license  and  penalties  for  violation  of  any  of  the 
provisions  of  this  act." 

This  bill  lets  out  Christian  Scientists  and  other  spiritual 
and  mental  healers;  but  compels  the  chiropractors  and  all 
other  so-called  irregulars  to  come  in  and  submit  to  the  State 
Board  examinations. 

Now  the  state  board  of  medical  examiners  is  composed 
wholly  of  the  so-called  regular  doctors. 

Why  should  not  the  chiropractors  have  a  board  of  their 
own  to  examine  applicants  for  admission  to  practice,  just 
as  the  regular  doctors  do — just  as  the  osteopaths  do — just  as 
the  dentists  do — just  as  the  veterinarians  do — just  as  the 
barbers  do — just  as  the  lawyers  do? 

Why  should  not  the  law  treat  all  alike,  giving  to  each 
school  of  healing  the  regulation  of  its  own  members? 

Why  should  the  nature  cure  doctor,  or  the  chiropractor, 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 73 

or  the  osteopath,  or  the  hydropath,  or  the  healer  who  advises 
fasting,  or  systems  of  diet,  or  he  who  administers  massage, — 
why  should  any  of  these  healers  be  required  to  pass  an  exam- 
ination prepared  by  doctors  who  may  know  nothing  of  any 
of  these  methods  of  ministering  to  the  sick,  and  who  are 
admittedly  hostile  to  them? 

Why  should  any  class  of  healers  be  given  any  advantage 
over  any  other  class? 

Why  can't  they  all  be  satisfied  with  a  fair  field  and  no 
favors  ? 

How  would  the  drug  doctors  like  it  if  they  had  to  pass 
an  examination  prepared  by  a  board  composed  of  osteopaths, 
or  chiropractors,  or  by  other  healers  who  are  utterly  opposed 
to  all  drugs? 

The  Other  Side — The  People's  Side. 

Then  again,  what  about  the  sick  and  suffering  people? 
Can't  the  people  be  trusted  to  choose  their  own  health 
advisers?  May  they  not  be  supposed  to  know  what  they 
want;  or  if  they  do  not  know,  can't  they  find  out? 

We  are  told  that  all  these  laws  making  it  a  crime  for  any 
but  the  drug  doctors  to  minister  to  the  sick,  are  in  the  interest 
of  the  people.  But  have  the  people  asked  for  them? 

Have  the  people  thronged  our  legislative  halls  and  asked 
for  laws  to  protect  themselves  from  their  own  mistakes  in 
choosing  their  health  advisers? 

Nature  a  Careful  Teacher. 

How  very  careful  nature  is  to  protect  us  against  any 
poisonous  or  injurious  substances! 

How  she  has  developed  in  us  a  wonderful  and  delicate 
sense  of  taste,  by  which  we  instinctively  reject  whatever  is 
likely  to  injure  us! 

Thru  untold  ages,  in  the  evolution  of  man,  those  who  have 
possessed  this  protecting  instinct  to  the  highest  degree  have 
escaped  the  poisons  and  lived  to  hand  down  to  their  offspring 
these  powers  of  self  defense. 

Nearly  all  children  revolt  at  the  taste  of  drugs  and 
poisons  of  all  kinds.  Not  until  later  in  life  do  we  acquire  the 
unnatural  taste  for  hurtful  things. 

Where  should  be  the  burden  of  proof? 

Should  not  the  drug  doctors  be  called  upon  to  prove  their 
case?  Are  not  the  presumptious  against  them,  rather  than 
against  those  who  discard  drugs  and  depend  upon  natural 
methods  to  heal  the  sick  and  suffering? 

Are  not  the  probabilities  in  favor  of  those  who  seek  to 
remove  causes,  rather  than  of  those  who  suppress  symptoms? 

Isn't  it  natural  that  we  should  object  to  taking  poisonous 
drugs  into  our  stomachs,  or  permitting  the  injection  of  foul 
and  filthy  substances  into  our  blood  streams? 

The  osteopath  and  the  chiropractor  seek  to  put  our  bones 
into  their  natural  and  proper  places,  so  they  will  not  press 
upon  our  blood  vessels  and  nerves,  and  thus  interfere  with 
their  proper  functioning.  They  practice  the  delicate  art  of 
manipulating  our  muscles  and  the  organs  of  our  body,  thus 
stimulating  them  to  greater  activity  and  helping  to  throw  off 
the  poisons  that  have  been  produced  by  the  destruction  of 
cells  and  from  improper  food  and  drink. 


74 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

The  dietitian  teaches  us  what  foods  are  wholesome  and 
what  are  injurious.  He  shows  us  how  such  poisons  as 
alcohol,  tobacco,  and  other  drugs  affect  our  various  organs 
and  their  functions,  and  warns  us  against  their  use. 

Man  is  the  only  animal  that  doesn't  know  enough  to  stop 
eating  and  keep  still  when  he  doesn't  feel  well.  But  we 
are  learning,  and  some  day  we  shall  be  wise  enough  to 
refuse  to  eat  when  we  ought  to  fast, — refuse  to  work  when 
we  ought  to  rest, — refuse  to  stimulate  our  system  with 
alcohol  and  other  poisons  when  they  are  calling  and  calling 
for  quiet  and  repose. 

The  nature  cure  doctor  teaches  us  the  inlportance  of 
sunshine,  fresh  air,  pure  water  and  wholesome  food, — of  well 
ventilated  dwellings,  offices  and  workrooms, — and  shows  us 
how  to  live  in  all  respects  in  harmony  with  the  physical  laws 
of  our  beings. 

The  spiritual  and  mental  healers  inspire  us  with  hope 
and  trust,  show  us  the  influence  of  the  mind  upon  the  body, 
and  lead  us  along  the  paths  of  pure  and  wholesome  living, 
physically,  mentally,  morally  and  spiritually. 

Why  then  should  laws  be  passed  subjecting  these  people 
to  fines,  penalties  and  imprisonment  for  no  other  reason  than 
because  they  treat  disease  without  drugs,  advise  their  patients 
how  to  conserve  their  vital  forces,  and  to  so  live  that  health, 
strength  and  length  of  days  shall  be  theirs? 

Surely  no  laws  should  be  passed  giving  any  class  of 
healers  a  monopoly,  nor  depriving  the  people  in  any  way  of 
their  natural  and  inherent  right  to  choose  their  own  health 
advisers  as  well  as  their  own  spiritual  ministers. 

Very  many  old  school  doctors  realize  all  this.  They 
accept  these  new  and  better  methods  and  use  them  in  their 
practice.  Many  of  them  scorn  to  ask  law-created  favors  and 
oppos.e  all  such  legislation. 

But  all  people  are  selfish,  and  doctors  are  no  exception. 
Many  of  them  are  so  filled  with  the  idea  that  their  methods 
are  the  only  ones,  that  they  are  willing  and  eager  to  compel 
all  to  follow  in  their  path,  and  make  it  a  crime  to  depart  there- 
from. 

Hence  come  these  restrictive  and  tyranical  medical  laws. 

But  the  people  are  learning  wisdom,  and  their  represent- 
atives are  reflecting  this  knowledge. 

It  is  becoming  harder  and  harder  to  put  on  to  the 
statute  books  laws  of  this  kind. 

Altho  this  particular  bill  was  reported  out  of  the  Senate 
committee  unanimously,  it  soon  lost  caste  and  finally  Dr. 
Hilbert  himself  moved  its  indefinite  postponement. 

Thus  ended  all  attempts  to  strengthen  the  hold  of  the 
regular  medical  doctors  on  the  business  of  ministering  to 
the  sick  and  suffering. 

The    Chiropractors    Bill. 

Early  in  the  session  Mr.  Southwick  introduced  a  bill  to 
create  a  board  of  examiners  for  chiropractors,  the  same  as 
the  regular  doctors  have  their  board,  and  the  osteopths  theirs. 

This  looks  very  reasonable,  but  many  members  did  not 
think  so;  for  there  was  a  determined  fight  made  against  the 
bill  by  Marwin,  Kneeland  and  Lydiard. 


_^ The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 75 

Southwick,  Hompe,  Parker,  Malmberg,  Davis,  Ferrier, 
Pless,  Minnette  and  H.  H.  Harrison  all  spoke  for  the  bill, 
and  several  of  them  gave  instances  within  their  own  knowl- 
edge, of  cases,  given  up  by  regular  doctors,  that  had  been 
helped  or  cured  by  chiropractors. 

All  this  did  not  avail,  for  the  bill  could  only  secure  sixty- 
two  votes. 

Thi^|  leaves  the  chiropractors  right  where  they  are  now. 
They  can  all  go  on  with  the  practice  of  their  profession,  but 
they  are  wholly  unregulated. 

Perhaps  it  would  be  just  as  well  if  all  doctors  were  left- 
free  to  practice,  each  in  his  own  way,  subject  to  responsibility 
for  the  results  of  his  work.  Perhaps  fewer  people  would  be 
killed  by  drugs,  poisons,  serums,  vaccine,  antitoxin  and  "suc- 
cessful" surgical  operation. 

I  don't  suppose  the  doctors  of  any  school  will  like  this 
chapter;  but  this  is  about  the  way  it  appears  to  one  ordinary 
layman  who  has  spent  some  time  in  the  study  of  the  struc- 
ture and  functions  of  the  human  body  and  the  action  of 
drugs  thereon;  the  importance  of  healthful  exercise,  proper 
food,  pure  water,  fresh  air,  good  thoughts  and  a  happy 
disposition. 

Education. 

The  question  of  education  is  always  a  very  important  one, 
but  it  seldom  comes  up  in  such  form  as  to  give  a  very  clear 
idea  as  to  the  general  tendency  of  the  members. 

In  1915  there  were  two  phases  of  this  question  presented. 

First,  admitting  the  necessity  for  economy,  where  shall 
the  cut  be  made? 

The  sentiment  of  the  legislature  was  overwhelming  that 
if  any  department  had  to  suffer  the  University  must  be 
forced  to  cut  down  expenses.  The  common  schools  must 
be  sustained.  This  point  was  brought  out  strongly  when  the 
House,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Christiansen,  voted  to  add  an  extra 
million  dollars  to  the  appropriation  for  rural  schools. 

This  was  cut  out  in  the  Senate,  and  the  rural  schools  lost 
this  additional  amount. 

Centralizing  the  School  System. 

For  some  years  the  state  department  of  education  has 
been  advocating  a  system  of  centralization  for  the  country 
schools  of  the  state  that  would  take  away  from  the  people 
of  the  local  districts  practically  all  control  of  their  local 
schools  and  invest  it  in  a  county  board  of  education  for  eacn 
county.  This  board,  to  be  elected  by  the  whole  people  of 
the  county,  was  to  have  general  charge  of  all  schools  in  the 
county,  the  hiring  and  discharging  of  all  teachers,  the  pre- 
scribing of  courses  of  study,  the  building  of  all  school 
houses,  and  the  county  superintendent  of  schools  was  to  be 
appointed  by  this  board,  instead  of  being  elected  by  the 
people  as  now. 

Here  was  a  very  ambitious  scheme  of  centralization  in 
the  country  school  system,  which  met  with  almost  universal 
disapproval  from  the  members  of  both  houses  especially 
those  from  the  rural  districts.  The  system  was  denounced 
as  undemocratic,  imperialistic  and  destructive  of  local  interest 
and  pride  in  the  little  school  by  the  roadside. 

The  idea  was  so  unpopular  that  it  was  quickly  abandoned. 


76 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 . 

The   Grain    Question. 

For  many  years  the  farmers  of  the  northwest  have  com- 
plained of  unfair  treatment  at  the  hands  of  the  old  line  eleva- 
tor companies  all  thru  the  country  districts,  and  from  the 
terminal  elevators  and  Chamber  of  Commerce  at  the  city  of 
Minneapolis. 

The  different  elevator  companies  combined  to  keep  the 
price  of  grain  down  at  the  primary  markets;  and  wfcen  the 
farmers  organized  and  built  their  own  elevators,  a  systematic 
campaign  was  waged  to  destroy  them  and  drive  them  out  of 
business.  The  line  elevator  companies  would  offer  a  price 
above  the  market,  until  the  farmers'  elevator  was  bankrupt, 
and  then  down  would  go  the  price  and  the  farmers  would  be 
robbed. 

The  farmers  also  complained  of  the  weighing  and  inspect- 
ing systems  at  the  terminal  markets. 

The  grain  inspectors  are  personally  friendly  with  the 
elevator  men  and  the  millers  and  it  is  no  more  than  human 
that  they  should  be  influenced  by  such  friendship.  In  fact 
it  is  almost  impossible  not  to  be  so  influenced.  The  effect 
has  been  to  grade  low  when  the  grain  comes  in — a  little 
lower  than  the  true  grade;  and  then  when  the  grain  is  sold 
out  of  the  elevators  it  will  grade  considerably  higher. 

It  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  much  more  high  grade  grain 
goes  out  than  comes  in. 

Of  course  much  of  this  is  due  to  mixing  and  cleaning  at 
the  terminal  elevators;  but  the  farmers  claim  that  this  will 
not  account  for  all  of  the  difference. 

Again  it  was  charged  that  the  cupola  scales  used  by 
the  terminal  elevators  to  weigh  the  grain  as  it  comes  from  the 
cars  were  sure  to  leak  more  or  less  and  thus  give  short 
weight.  But  the  greatest  cause  for  complaint  against  the 
cupola  scales  comes  from  the  fact  that  in  connection  with 
this  method  of  weighing,  a  powerful  fan  is  used  to  blow  the 
dust  out  of  the  grain  before  the  weight  is  taken  and  a  con- 
siderable amount  of  grain  is  blown  away  with  the  dust. 
This  is  a  clear  loss  to  the  producer  and  an  equal  gain  to  the 
elevator  company. 

It  is  almost  impossible  for  any  one  to  engage  in  the 
grain  business  unless  he  can  become  a  member  of  the 
Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  the  price  of  such  membership  is 
exorbitantly  high. 

Another  complaint  was  that  licensed  grain  dealers  sold 
their  own  grain  to  fill  the  best  orders  and  sold  grain  con- 
signed to  them  to  fill  the  poorer  orders,  this  giving  their 
customers  the  worst  of  the  bargain. 

Futures. 

Is  there  any  harm  in  buying  or  selling  grain  or  anything 
else  for  future  delivery? 

Does  even  betting  and  gambling  have  any  effect  on  the 
price  of  grain? 

Very  many  people  think  so;  others  think  not.  We  fre- 
quently hear  it  said,  "The  gamblers  fix  the  price  of  grain 
and  rob  the  producers  of  millions." 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  claimed  that  the  grain  gamblers, 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 77 

like  stock  gamblers  or  any  others  who  take  that  kind  of 
risks,  hurt  no  one  but  themselves. 

"Selling  grain  that  does  not  exist  hammers  the  price 
down;"  this  i's  a  common  remark. 

Reliable  testimony  shows  that  there  are  three  hundred 
times  more  futures  sold  than  could  be  covered  by  the  actual 
grain  in  the  market. 

But  doesn't  buying  grain  that  doesn't  exist  shove  the 
price  up? 

Or  is  this  the  true  explanation:  The  man  who  sells 
grain  that  he  doesn't  own,  thinks,  the  price  will  go  down  and 
he  can  buy  cheaper  any  time  before  the  day  of  delivery.  So 
he  bets  on  his  belief.  If  his  judgment  is  good  he  wins. 

The  man  who  buys  grain  that  he  doesn't  ever  expect  to 
receive  really  believes  that  the  price  will  go  up  and  that  he 
can  sell  at  a  profit.  If  the  price  does  go  up,  he  wins  his  bet; 
if  it  goes  down  he  loses: 

Do  these  transactions  in  any  way  affect  the  price  of 
grain,  except  as  each  side  by  false  rumors  may  try  to  influ- 
ence the  market?  and  haven't  the  bulls  and  bears  each  an 
equal  chance  to  put  the  market  up  or  down? 

Well,  however  this  may  be,  bills  were  introduced  to 
correct  all  these  evils. 

I.  A  bill  by  Mr.  Welch  to  require  every  certificate  of 
inspection  to  "set  forth  the  test  weight  per  bushel   of  the 
grain  so  inspected." 

II.  A  bill  by  Mr.  Johnson  to  provide  for  the  weighing 
of  all  grain  on  track  scales,  and  to  abolish  entirely  the  system 
of  cupola  scales  now  in  use. 

III.  A  bill  by  Mr.  Knutson  to  impose  a  tax  on  all  sales 
for  future  delivery  in  which  contracts  were  not   filled   and 
delivered.     This  bill  passed  the  House  but  was  lost  in  the 
Senate. 

IV.  A  bill  by   Magnus   Johnson   to   prohibit  unfair  dis- 
crimination in  the  sale  or  purchase  of  grain. 

V.  A  bill  by  Magnus  Johnson  to  prohibit  licensed  grain 
dealers  from   selling  their  grain   in   competition  with   grain 
consigned  to  them. 

VI.  A  bill  to  open  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  Duluth 
Board  of  Trade  to  all  comers  on  payment  of  $1000  for  mem- 
bership and  to  prevent  mehberships  ever  being  more  than  that 
price,  also  to  force  the  Chamber  to  make  its  deliberations  pub- 
lic,  to   give   the   railway   and   warehouse   commission   access 
to  these  proceedings,   and  to   prevent  the  expulsion  of  any 
member  except  as  the  result  of  a  court  decree. 

VII.  A  bill   by   A.   F.   Teigen   to   prohibit   all   sales   for 
future  delivery,  unless  the  seller  actually  owned  and  had  the 
goods  on  hand  at  the  time  of  the  sale  and  at  a  designation. 

This  bill  was  very  hotly  contested  and  would  have  passed 
the  House  without  doubt  if  it  could  have  been  so  amended  as 
to  satisfy  members  that  it  would  not  prohibit  hedging. 

The  price  of  grain  is  always  lower  just  after  the  harvest. 
The  reason  for  this  is  so  simple  as  to  need  no  explanation. 
Many  grain  growers  have  no  means  of  housing  their  grain 
and  hence  must  throw  it  on  the  market  immediately. 

The  country  elevators  must  accept  grain  for  storage, 
Their  capacity  is  soon  filled  and  they  must  sell  this  stored 


78 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

grain  that  they  do  not  own,  in  order  to  make  room  for  other 
grain  as  it  comes  in. 

The  price  is  almost  sure  to  go  up,  and  the  owners  of 
this  grain  may  come  in  at  any  time  and  demand  settlement. 

If  the  elevator  owners  are  prohibited  by  law  from  "hedg- 
ing," that  is,  buying  an  option  on  grain  for  future  delivery  to 
cover  the  grain  that  they  have  been  forced  to  sell  and  ship 
out,  they  would  be  obliged  to  stop  receiving  grain  as  soon 
as  their  elevator  was  full;  and  the  farmers  would  be  obliged 
to  store  their  own  grain. 

All  millers  sell  flour  for  future  delivery,  would  this  bill 
prohibit  such  sales? 

Creameries  and  cheese  factories  contract  to  sell  their 
products  for  future  delivery — products  which  they  do  not 
then  own — would  this  bill  prohibit  such  sales? 

The  author  of  the  bill  said  "No,"  but  many  members  were 
not  satisfied  and  voted  against  the  bill. 

There  is  no  particular  significance  in  the  vote  on  this  bill. 
Most  of  the  actual  farmers  voted  for  it,  several  St.  Paul 
members  were  for  it  expecting  in  return  votes  for  the  boxing 
bill,  and  they  got  some  of  them. 

None  of  these  bills  passed  both  houses.  They  simply 
indicate  a  wide  spread  dissatisfaction  with  our  system  of 
handling  grain. 

CHAPTER  XI. 
A   NON-PARTISAN    LEGISLATURE. 

The  Minnesota  legislature  of  1915  is  probably  the  first 
and  only  non-partisan  legislature  that  ever  met  in  any  state 
in  the  Union. 

No  member  of  this  legislature  was  elected  because  he 
was  a  Republican,  a  Democrat,  a  Prohibitionist,  a  Socialist 
or  a  Progressive. 

His  party  politics  had  probably  very  much  less  to  do 
with  his  election  than  the  church  he  belonged  to. 

Each  candidate  had  to  make  his  canvass  for  votes  on  his 
personal  character  and  fitness  and  upon  the  things  he  stood 
for. 

Of  the  one  hundred  and  thirty  members  of  the  house, 
about  thirty  have  voted  the  democratic  ticket  with  more  or 
less  regularity,  tho  several  of  them  would  not  admit  to  a  very 
strong  party  feeling. 

Two  are  Prohibitionists,  two  are  Socialists.  There  are 
probably  several  who  voted  for  Roosevelt,  and  a  number  of 
very  independent  Republicans,  several  of  whom  are  great 
admirers  of  President  Wilson,  and  probably  voted  for  him. 

In  the  Senate  it  is  much  the  same.  Out  of  sixty-seven 
members  one  has  been  a  party  Prohibitionist;  one  was  a 
Socialist;  one  a  Populist.  Sixteen  had  been  known  as  Dem- 
ocrats, tho  one,  at  least,  had  never  been  much  of  a  party  man. 
The  other  forty-eight  had  usually  been  classed  as  Republi- 
cans, tho  many  of  them  had  been  very  independent,  and  a  con- 
siderable number  had  voted  for  Roosevelt  or  Wilson. 

On  the  whole  the  members  of  both  houses  probably  reach 
a  higher  level  of  intelligence,  honesty,  sincerity,  independ- 
ence and  devotion  to  their  ideals  and  what  they  regard  as 
their  duty  to  their  constituents,  than  any  other  Legislature 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1!)1.~> 79 

that  has  ever  met  in  the  State.  This  is  largely  due  to  the 
fact  that  no  one  could  wave  the  party  banner  and  secure 
votes  because  of  his  real  or  pretended  belief  in  Jefferson  or 
Jackson,  Lincoln  or  Roosevelt. 

The  time  has  passed  when  the  crack  of  the  party  lash  can 
make  the  members  jump. 

The  people  are  sending  a  more  intelligent  and  independ- 
ent set  of  men  here  to  make  their  laws,  and  they  can't  be 
blindly  led. 

It  is  a  sure  thing  that  some  of  the  very  best  and  ablest 
men  in  both  House  and  Senate  could  not  have  been  here  under 
the  partisan  system. 

Vermilya  and  Lobeck,  Sageng  and  Jones  in  the  Senate 
could  hardly  have  been  possible,  if  they  had  been  obliged  to 
run  as  Democrat,  Prohibitionist,  Populist  and  Socialist. 

If  those  four  men  had  been  defeated,  then  indeed  the 
Senate  would  have  been  reactionary. 

Of  course  there  are  a  few  reactionaries  here  that  prob- 
ably couldn't  have  succeeded  under  a  partisan  system,  but  in 
most  cases  there  is  no  assurance  that  any  better  men  would 
have  been  elected. 

However  there  is  one  thing  that  is  quite  certain.  If 
the  party  system  had  been  in  force,  Mr.  Flowers  would  not 
have  been  -Speaker  of  the  House  and  the  whole  organization 
of  that  body  would  have  been  different.  What  the  final  result 
would  have  been  no  one  can  tell.  The  Non-partisan  system 
will  improve — more  and  more,  fearless  and  independent  men 
will  be  chosen.  The  people  will  learn  and  they  will  reflect 
that  knowledge  in  the  character  of  their  representatives. 
Both  the  people  and  their  representatives  will  be  freed  from 
party  fear  and  superstition  and  forced  to  look  every  question 
squarely  in  the  face,  and  we  may  reasonably  expect  a  steady 
improvement. 

We  got  the  County  Option  Bill  in  spite  of  the  bad  organ- 
ization of  the  present  House,  and  I  don't  believe  it  would  ever 
have  passed  the  Senate  if  it  hadn't  been  for  Jones  and 
Vermilya,  defeating  Pugh  and  Stebbins — who  have  always 
fought  to  a  finish  against  county  option. 

•Some  of  the  city  dailies  and  country  weeklies  have  been 
charging  all  the  sins  of  this  legislature  to  the  fact  that  it 
was  non-partisan;  but  was  it  as  bad  as  that  of  1909,  or  1911, 
both  of  which  were  partisan  and  controlled  by  the  reactionary 
Republicans.  It  certainly  saved  the  people  over  a  million  dol- 
lars a  year  in  the  matter  of  expenditures  over  the  partisan 
legislation  of  1913,  which  was  controlled  by  the  Progressive 
Republicans. 

The  real  fault  with  the  legislature  of  1915  was  because 
it  was  organized  by  an  unholy  alliance  between  the  breweries 
and  the  big  corporate  interests.  Whether  such  an  alliance 
would  have  been  possible  under  a  partisan  system  no  one  can 
tell.  We  know  it  has  been  in  the  past. 

The  salvation  of  this  legislature  rests  with  the  independ- 
ent men  in  it,  some  of  whom  at  least  could  not  have  been 
here  under  a  party  system.  Daily  these  independent  men 
turned  down  committees  and  overthrew  the  organization,  until 
the  unholy  alliance  was  utterly  powerless. 


80 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Some   Laws  That   Passed. 

Passed  a  county  option  law. 

Passed  "road  house"  bill  prohibiting  saloon  licenses  out- 
side of  cities  and  villages. 

Provided  for  a  budget  system  of  making  appropriation 
estimates  before  legislature  meets. 

Passed  Minnette  bill  giving  state  railroad  and  warehouse 
commission  power  to  regulate  telephone  rates  and  service. 

Created  women's  reformatory  as  a  new  state  institution. 

Repealed  the  Elwell  road  law. 

Amended  Dunn  road  law  in  important  particulars. 

Amended  workmen's  compensation  law  as  agreed  to  be- 
tween representatives  of  capital  and  labor. 

Required  public  service  corporations  to  pay  employees 
semi-monthly. 

Passed  enabling  act  permitting  negotiations  for  a  new 
Minneapolis  street  railway  franchise. 

Submitted  initiative  and  referendum  amendment  to  the 
voters  again. 

Resubmitted  "revolving  fund"  amendment  to  state  con- 
stitution. 

Gave  insurance  commissioner  supervision  of  fire  insur- 
ance rating  bureaus  and  right  to  change  rates  found  unfair 
or  discriminatory. 

Passed  statewide  teachers'  endowment  and  retirement 
fund. 

Abolished  "second  choice"  feature  of  primary  electron 
law. 

Amended  presidential  preference  primary  law  to  give 
direct  vote  on  candidates  for  president. 

Revised  schedule  for  state  aid  to  public  schools. 

Created  game  and  fish  commissioner  with  full  power  over 
department,  superseding  former  commission  of  five. 

Submitted  amendment  increasing  supreme  court  to  seven 
members. 

Passed  a  stringent  law  governing  the  sale  of  narcotics. 

Abolished  fees  for  inspection  of  weights  and  measures  by 
state. 

Amended  Cashman  distance  tariff  law,  making  Twin  Cities 
one  terminal. 

Created  an  interim  commission  on  efficiency  and  economy. 

Reduced  the  state  tax  levy. 

Appropriated  $17,910,000  for  various  purposes. 

Eliminated  supreme  court  from  new  historical  society 
building  and  permitted  selection  of  new  site. 

Legalized  10-round  boxing  contests  under  supervision  of 
a  state  athletic  commission. 

What  the   Legislature   Spent. 

Compilation  by  the  state  auditor  shows  the  following 
total  for  1915  appropriations,  covering  the  two  years  ending 
July  31,  1917: 

State   departments    $5,523,796 

Charitable   institutions    4,783,533 

Educational    institutions     7,124,760 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 81 

Miscellaneous    477,911 


Total $17,910,000 

Total  of   1913   session 19,094,168 

Total   of  1914   session 17,662,308 

Estimated  receipts  from  special  taxes  for  the  next  two 
years  are  $14,180,000,  leaving  $3,730,000  to  be  raised  by  the 
general  property  tax.  The  maximum  levy  fixed  to  raise  this 
is  1.4  mills,  compared  with  2.3  mills  in  1913.  The  state  will 
raise  $1,800,000  a  year  for  its  revenue  fund  from  real  and 
personal  property  tax  the  next  two  years,  compared  with 
$3,100,000  a  year  provided  in  1913. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    RECORDS  OF  THE    MEMBERS. 

The  way  a  man  votes  on  important  bills  is  a  pretty  fair 
method  of  judging  of  his  fitness  as  a  legislator;  but  not  a 
perfect  measure  of  that  fitness. 

In  the  legislature  of  1915  were  many  men  who  were 
elected  on  one  side  or  the  other  of  the  question  of  county 
option. 

These  men  are  worthy  of  credit  in  so  far  as  they  kept 
their  pledges  and  met  the  expectations  of  their  constituents; 
but  the  man  who  violates  his  pledges  and  misrepresents  his 
constituents  is  worthy  of  the  most  severe  condemnation; 
and  what  shall  we  say  of  the  man  who  votes  for  a  bill  because 
he  does  not  dare  do  otherwise,  but  works  on  the  quiet  against 
it  and  does  all  he  can  to  kill  it? 

The  true  test  of  a  man's  honesty,  independence  and  real 
democracy,  comes  when  he  is  confronted  with  some  new 
and  unexpected  question  that  goes  to  the  roots  of  our 
institutions. 

If  he  is  a  true  democrat  he  will  line  up  right.  If  he 
is  a  plutocrat,  an  aristocrat  or  a  champion  of  privilege,  he 
is  pretty  sure  to  get  on  the  wrong  side. 

I  have  not  used  the  word  "progressive"  in  characterizing 
members.  It  has  ceased  to  mean  much. 

IN    THE   SENATE. 

The  following  are  perhaps  the  best  tests: 

I.  County    Option — to    submit    to    the    people    of    each 
county  the  question  "Shall  the  Sale  of  Liquor  be  Prohibited 
within  the  County." 

II.  Road  house  bill — Here  the  test  came  on  the  amend- 
ment to  permit  the  County  Board  to  license  on  recommenda- 
tion of  the  Town  Board,  the  Sheriff  and  the  County  Attorney. 

III.  The  vote  on  both  Constitutional  and  Statutory  Pro- 
hibition  is   here   included,   though   neither   can   be   regarded 
as  a  vital  test,  for  neither  was  much  of  an  issue  before  the 
people;  yet  there  is  the  fundamental  question  "Shall  an  evil 
be  legalized  or  prohibited?" 

IV.  The  same  question  is  involved  in  both  the  boxing 
bill  and  the  Mayo  proposition:     "Shall  the  State  enter  into 
partnership    with    private    enterprises — especially    those    of 
doubtful  merit  or  morality?" 

V.  The   question   of  Easier  Amendment   of   the   Consti- 


82  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1<)1~> 

tution,    as    presented    by    the    -Sullivan    amendment    to    the 
Initiative  and  Referendum  bill. 

VI.  Equal    Suffrage— Shall    the    voters    of    the    state    be 
allowed  to  determine  whether  or  not  women  may  have  the 
ballot? 

VII.  Repeal  of  the   Elwell   road   law;    yet  in  the  three 
large  cities  the  question  had  not  been  given  much  discussion. 

VIII.  The  Civil  Service  Repeal  bill  involves  an  important 
principle. 

IX.  The  Semi-Monthly  Pay  Day  hinged  upon  the  right  of 
men  to  get  their  pay  from  Public  Service  Corporations  within 
a  reasonable  time  after  they  had  earned  it. 

X.  The   Street  Railway  bill  has   been  included,  though 
whether  it  is  a  very  dangerous  measure,  now  depends  upon 
the  city  council  and  the  voters  of  Minneapolis.    The  company 
was  eager  to  have  it.  , 

XI.  The  patronage  deal  and  election  of  president  pro  tern, 
are  here  included.     They  are  worth  considering. 

CHARLES  E.  ADAMS,  Lake,  Cook  and  East  end  of 
Duluth. — Lawyer;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.,  but 
supported  county  option;  was  against  prohibition,  but  voted 
to  prohibit  all  road  houses;  was  against  equal  suffrage,  though 
his  vote  was  expected  to  be  for  it;  voted  against  easy  amend- 
ment of  the  Constitution,  but  was  for  the  initiative  and  refer- 
endum on  final  passage;  for  the  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
opposed  the  repeal  of  the  civil  service;  voted  for  the  boxing 
bill,  but  against  the  Mayo  affiliation;  for  street  railway 
franchise;  against  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law. 

J.  T.  ALLEY,  Buffalo,  Wright  Co. — Lawyer;  member  of 
the  House  in  1901  and  Senator  1903-5;  opposed  the  patronage 
deal;  voted  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county 
option;  constitutional  prohibition  and  against  all  road  houses, 
but  voted  against  prohibition  by  statute;  for  equal  suffrage, 
easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road 
law;  opposed  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation,  and 
the  repeal  of  the  civil  service;  for  street  railway  franchise. 

JOHN  W.  ANDREWS,  Mankato,  Blue  Earth  Co.— Physi- 
cian and  -Surgeon;  member  of  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion; for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option, 
and  prohibition,  and  against  all  road  houses;  for  equal  suf- 
frage, civil  service,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  in- 
itiative and  referendum;  opposed  Mayo  affiliation,  but  voted 
for  the  boxing  bill,  the  street  railway  bill,  and  against  repeal 
of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against  semi-monthly  pay  day. 

JOHN  H.  BALDWIN,  Frazee,  Becker  Co.— Lawyer;  for 
many  years  a  prominent  Republican  politician;  from  a  wholly 
dry  district;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against 
county  option,  and  all  temperance  laws,  except  that  he  voted 
for  the  anti-road  house  bill  on  final  passage;  against  equal 
suffrage  and  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  but  was 
for  initiative  and  referendum  on  final  passage;  against  civil 
service,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road 
law;  for  street  railway  bill  and  boxing  bill,  but  opposed 
Mayo  affiliation. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 83 

HENRY  N.  BENSON,  St.  Peter,  Nicollet  and  Sibley  Go's.— 
Lawyer;  Senator  in  1911-13;  opposed  the  patronage  deal,  can- 
didate of  the  progressive  forces  for  president  pro  tern.; 
for  county  option,  constitutional  prohibition,  and  against  all 
road  houses,  but  oopposed  prohibition  by  statute;  for  equal 
suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and 
referendum,  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  semi-monthly  pay 
day;  favored  street  railway  franchise,  repeal  of  civil  service, 
and  Mayo  affiliation,  but  was  against  the  boxing  bill. 

THEODORE  C.  BLOMGREN,  Cambridge,  Isanti  and 
Anoka  Co.'s — Banker;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for 
county  option,  anti  road  house  bill  and  statutory  prohibition, 
but  against  constitutional  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage 
and  initiative  and  referendum,  but  against  easy  amendment  of 
the  constitution  and  the  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  repeal 
of  Elwell  Road  law,  and  against  both  the  boxing  bill  and  the 
Mayo  affiliation;  voted  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

H.  H.  BONNIWELL,  Hutchinson,  McLeod  Co.— Lawyer 
and  blooded  stock  farmer;  comes  from  a  district  strongly 
opposed  to  equal  suffrage  and  county  option;  was  for  Ben- 
son for  president  pro  tern.,  refused  to  go  into  the  patronage 
deal;  against  county  option,  equal  suffrage  and  prohibition, 
but  for  the  anti  road  house  bill;  for  initiative  and  referendum, 
easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  semi-monthly  pay  day 
and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  favored  the  boxing  bill, 
but  opposed  Mayo  affiliation;  against  street  railway  bill, 
and  did  not  vote  on  civil  service  repeal,  regarding  it  as  a 
Minneapolis  matter;  made  a  strong  fight  for  the  rural  schools, 
and  against  imperialism  in  education. 

R.  T.  BUCKLER,  Crookston,  Polk  Co.— Farmer  and  large 
land  owner;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.,  and  against 
county  option,  and  prohibition  by  statute,  but  was  for  the 
anti  road  house  bill  and  for  constitutional  prohibition;  against 
equal  suffrage  and  easier  amendment  of  the  constitution, 
but  for  initiative  and  referendum;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day 
and  repeal  of '  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  street  railway  bill, 
boxing  bill  and  Mayo  affiliation;  refused  to  vote  on  the 
repeal  of  civil  service,  regarding  it  a  Minneapolis  local  matter. 

J.  G.  CALLAHAN,  represents  a  district  comprising  both 
sides  of  the  river  from  the  steel  arch  bridge  north  to  Minne- 
apolis city  limits. — Lawyer;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro 
tern.,  and  against  county  option,  and  all  the  temperance  laws; 
for  initiative  and  referendum,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
against  the  Mayo  affiliation;  but  was  for  the  boxing  bill, 
street  railway  bill,  and  repeal  o'f  civil  service;  against  repeal 
of  the  Elwell  road  law,  and  easier  amendment  of  the  con- 
stitution. 

A.  S.  CAMPBELL,  Austin,  Mower  and  Dodge  Counties  — 
Flour  miller;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.,  and  against 
county  option,  all  temperance  measures,  and  easy  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution;  favored  the  street  railway  bill, 
the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation;  for  initiative  and 
referendum,  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  and  for  semi-monthly 
pay  day,  and  against  repeal  of  the  civil  service;  voted  against 
equal  suffrage,  (See  chapter  on  Equal  Suffrage). 


84 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

WM.  A.  CAMPBELL,  11  and  12  Wards,  Minneapolis  — 
Traveling  salesman.  Member  of  the  House  in  1909-11-13; 
opposed  the  patronage  deal;  for  Benson  for  president  pro 
tern.,  and  for  all  temperance  measures  except  statutory  pro- 
hibition, for  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  constitution, 
initiative  and  referendum,  repeal  of  Elwell  law,  semi-monthly 
pay  day,  and  against  the  street  railway  bill;  for  repeal  of 
civil  service,  after  his  efforts  to  amend  the  law  had  failed; 
for  the  boxing  bill,  but  against  the  Mayo  affiliation;  tried  to 
extend  state  insurance  to  county  buildings,  but  was  out- 
voted. 

JAMES  A.  CARLE Y,  Plainview,  Wabasha  Co. — Lawyer, 
former  County  Attorney,  member  of  the  House  in  1909;  for 
Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  county  option,  and 
all  temperance  laws,  but  was  for  equal  suffrage,  easy  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum,  repeal 
of  the  Elwell.  road  law,  and  against  repeal  of  the  civil  service  ; 
for  street  railway  bill,  and  against  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for 
the  boxing  bill  and  against  Mayo  affiliation;  author  of  the 
resolution  establishing  an  efficiency  and  economy  committee 
to  report  to  the  next  legislature. 

E.  B.  COLLESTER,  Waseca,  Waseca  and  -Steele  Counties. 
— Lawyer.  Member  of  Senate  in  1895-7 — and  in  1903-5;  for 
Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  county  option,  and 
all  temperance  laws  except  the  anti-road  house  bill;  against 
equal  suffrage,  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  and  semi-monthly 
pay  day;  for  repeal  of  civil  service,  the  street  railway  bill 
and  the  Mayo  affiliation,  but  opposed  the  boxing  bill;  voted 
for  easy  amendment  to  the  constitution  and  initiative  and 
referendum. 

JAS.  D.  DENEGRE,  Fourth  and  Seventh  Wards,  St.  Paul. 
— Lawyer,  elected  unopposed,  Senator  in  1911-13;  for  Sullivan 
for  president  pro  tern.;  against  county  option,  and  prohibi- 
tion, but  voted  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  the  only  member 
of  the  senate  labor  committee  to  oppose  the  bill  requiring 
public  service  corporations  to  pay  their  employees  semi- 
monthly; for  equal  suffrage  and  initiative  and  referendum, 
and  against  repeal  of  civil  service;  for  the  street  railway  bill, 
the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation,  and  against  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  law. 

R.  C.  DUNN,  Princeton,  Mille  Lacs,  Sherburne  and  Kan- 
abec  Counties. — Owner  Princeton  Union  and  former  State 
Auditor,  member  of  the  House  in  1911  and  13;  for  Sullivan  for 
president  pro  tern.;  supported  county  option,  the  anti-road 
house  bill  and  equal  suffrage;  opposed  initiative  and  referen- 
dum, easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  and  semi-monthly 
pay  day;  voted  for  repeal  of  civil  service,  for  the  street  rail- 
way bill,  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation; was  excused 
from  voting  on  Elwell  road  law. 

W.  W.  DUNN,  Second  and  Third  Wards  of  St.  Paul  and 
Ramsey  Co.  east  of  Rice  St. — Lawyer,  Vice  President  and 
Attorney  for  the  Hamm  Brewing  Co.,  elected  unopposed,  has 
been  in  House  or  -Senate  since  1896;  for  Sullivan  for  president 
pro  tern.;  voted  for  the  semi-monthly  pay  day;  against  all 
temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  referendum, 
'M.BI  H8M.jg  jo  i^adaj  PUB  'uopnipsuoo  aq;  jo  luarapuaraB 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 85 

favored  repeal  of  civil  service,  the  street  railway  bill,  the 
boxing  bill  and  opposed  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

F.  A.  DUXBURY,  Caledonia,  Houston  and  Fillmore 
Counties. — Lawyer,  Senator  1911-13;  for  Sullivan  for  presi- 
dent pro  tern.;  voted  for  county  option  and  the  anti-road  house 
bill,  but  opposed  prohibition,  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and 
referendum,  easy  amendment  to  the  constitution,  and  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  against  repeal  of  civil  service  and  the  box- 
ing bill,  but  for  the  Mayo  affiliation  and  the  street  railway  bill. 

WM.  S.  DWINNELL,  Fourth  Ward,  Minneapolis.— Lawyer, 
member  American  Bar  Association,  officer  and  director  of 
various  corporations,  Senator  in  1911-13;  for  Benson  for  presi- 
dent pro  tern.,  and  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws 
except  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  referen- 
dum, easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  semi-monthly  pay 
day;  opposed  the  repeal  of  the  Elwell  law,  and  favored 
street  railway  bill;  favored  the  Mayo  affiliation,  but  made  a 
strong  fight  against  the  boxing  bill  and  repeal  of  civil  service. 

P.  A.  GANDRUD,  Sunburg,  Kandiyohi  and  Swift  Counties. 
— Merchant  and  Banker,  opposed  the  patronage  deal;  for 
Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  all  temperance  laws,  equal 
suffrage,  initiative  and  referendum,  easy  amendment  of  the 
constitution  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  repeal  of 
civil  service;  for  street  railway  bill  and  against  semi-monthly 
pay  day;  opposed  the  boxing  bill,  voted  against  the  bill  to 
prohibit  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

GEO.  H.  GARDNER,  Brainerd,  Crow  Wing  and  Morri- 
son Counties. — For  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.,  against 
county  option,  against  forcing  licensed  saloons  on  dry  terri- 
tory, if  county  should  vote  wet;  a  faithful  supporter  of  all 
reasonable  labor  laws;  author  of  the  semi-monthly  pay  day 
bill;  against  prohibition  but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  for 
equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  referendum,  easy  amendment 
of  the  constitution,  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  the 
boxing  bill,  but  against  the  Mayo  affiliation  and  the  street 
railway  bill;  refused  to  vote  on  repeal  of  civil  service,  regard- 
ing it  a  local  Minneapolis  question. 

C.  W.  GILLAM,  Windom,  Cottonwood  and  Jackson 
Counties. — Banker  and  merchant,  opposed  the  patronage 
deal;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option 
and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  repeal  of  Elwell 
Road  law;  favored  semi-monthly  pay  day  "bill,  but  was  absent 
and  did  not  vote;  opposed  the  repeal  of  civil  service,  the 
street  railway  bill,  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

OLUF  GJERSET,  Montivedeo,  Chippewa  and  Lac  Qui 
Parle  Counties. — Lawyer;  opposed  the  patronage  deal;  for 
Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option  and  all 
temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  referendum, 
but  opposed  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution;  favored 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  opposed  repeal  of  Civil  service 
and  both  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation;  voted  for 
the  street  railway  bill  and  against  semi-monthly  pay  day. 

FRANK  L.  GLOTZBACH,  Faribault,  Rice  Co.— Druggist ; 
for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  opposed  all  temperance 


86 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

laws,  equal  suffrage  and  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution, 
but  voted  for  initiative  and  referendum;  favored  repeal  of 
civil  service  and  the  street  railway  bill,  and  opposed  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  voted  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  against  the 
Mayo  affiliation;  voted  to  repeal  Elwell  road  law. 

O.  H.  GRIGGS,  Virginia,  N.  E.  Dist.  of  St.  Louis  Co.— Law- 
yer, former  owner  of  Light  and  Power  Co. ;  elected  unopposed ; 
opposed  the  patronage  deal,  but  voted  for  Sullivan  for  presi- 
dent pro  tern.;  voted  for  county  option,  but  opposed  all  other 
temperance  laws;  for  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day, 
initiative  and  referendum,  but  was  against  easy  amendment 
of  the  constitution  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  favored 
repeal  of  civil  service,  the  street  railway  bill,  the  boxing  bill 
and  opposed  the  Mayo  affiliation;  senate  leader  in  favor  of  the 
boxing  bill. 

THOS.  J.  GROSE,  Seventh  and  Thirteenth  Wards,  Min- 
neapolis.— District  Manager  Brotherhood  of  American  Yeo- 
man; for  -Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  all  temper- 
ance laws  except  the  anti-road  house  bill;  opposed  equal 
suffrage,  the  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law  and  easy  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  but  voted  for  initiative  and  refer- 
endum and  semi-monthly  pay  day;  favored  repeal  of  civil 
service,  the  street  railway  bill,  the  boxing  bill  and  opposed 
the  Mayo  affiliation. 

JAS.  HANDLAN,  Eighth  and  Twelfth  Wards,  St.  Paul.— 
Meat  dealer,  member  of  the  House  1909  and  Senator  1911-13; 
for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  all  temperance 
laws,  equal  suffrage,  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  and  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution,  but  did  vote  finally  for  in- 
itiative and  referendum,  and  favored  semi-monthly  pay  day; 
-favored  repeal  of  civil  service,  the  street  railway  and  the  box- 
ing bill  and  opposed  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

A.  L.  HANSON,  Ada,  Norman  and  Mahnomen  Counties. — 
Senator  1911-13,  Banker,  elected  unopposed;  opposed  the  pat- 
ronage deal,  and  was  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.; 
for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage, 
easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  semi-monthly  pay  day, 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law,  initiative  and  referendum; 
opposed  the  street  railway  bill,  the  boxing  bill,  the  Mayo 
affiliation  and  repeal  of  the  civil  service. 

JOHN  A.  HEALY,  Hibbing,  N.  W.  part  of  St.  Louis  Co.— 
Hotel  Keeper;  was  a  supporter  of  Sullivan  for  president  pro 
tern.,  but  was  not  present  and  could  not  be  found  to  vote. 
Against  county  option,  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suf- 
frage, easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  refer- 
endum, semi-monthly  pay  day,  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road 
law;  voted  for  the  street  railway  bill,  the  boxing  bill  the 
Mayo  affiliation  and  the  repeal  of  the  civil  service. 

N.  S.  HEGNES,  Argyle,  Kittson,  Roseau  and  Marshall 
Counties. — Banker;  opposed  the  patronage  deal,  but  was  for 
Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  was  for  county  option  and 
all  temperance  laws,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  in- 
itiative and  referendum;  but  opposed  equal  suffrage,  semi- 
monthly pay  day,  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  favored 
repeal  of  civil  service,  the  street  railway  bill  and  the  Mayo 
affiliation,  but  opposed  the  boxing  bill. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    J915 87_ 

PIERRE  A.  HILBERT,  Melrose,  West  end  of  Stearns 
Co.— Physician;  elected  unopposed;  for  Sullivan  for 
president  pro  tern.;  opposed  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suf- 
frage, semi-monthly  pay  day,  easy  amendment  of  the  con- 
stitution, but  voted  for  initiative  and  referendum  and  to 
repeal  the  Elwell  road  law;  was  for  the  street  railway  bill, 
the  boxing  bill,  repeal  of  the  civil  service  and  opposed  the 
Mayo  affiliation. 

N.  J.  HOLMBERG,  Renville,  Renville  Co. — Farmer,  mem- 
ber of  the  House  1907-9-11-13;  against  the  patronage  deal; 
for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option  and  all 
temperance  laws  except  statutory  prohibition;  voted  for 
equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative 
and  referendum,  but  was  against  semi-monthly  pay  day;  was 
for  the  street  railway  bill,  but  against  both  the  boxing  bill 
and  the  Mayo  affiliation  and  also  against  repeal  of  the  civil 
service. 

JOSEPH  A.  JACKSON,  N.  E.  part  of  St.  Paul.— Lawyer, 
member  of  the  House  in  1899-1901-2;  for  Benson  for  president 
pro  tern.;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws  except 
statutory  prohibition;  against  equal  suffrage  but  favored  initia- 
tive and  referendum,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution  and 
semi-monthly  pay  day;  opposed  street  railway  bill,  civil  serv- 
ice repeal  and  Mayo  affiliation,  but  voted  for  the  boxing  bill. 

JAMES  JOHNSTON,  Bertha,  Todd  and  Wadena  Counties. 
— Farmer  and  stock  raiser,  member  of  the  Senate  1907-9-11- 
13;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  opposed  all  temper- 
ance laws,  equal  suffrage,  and  easy  amendment  of  the  con- 
stitution, but  voted  for  initiative  and  referendum,  the  repeal 
of  the  Elwell  road  law  and  the  semi-monthly  pay  day;  favored 
the  street-railway  bill,  the  boxing  bill,  the  Mayo  affiliation 
and  the  civil  service  repeal. 

RICHARD  JONES,  central  portion  of  Duluth. — Lawyer, 
youngest  man  in  the  Senate;  on  a  radically  progressive  plat- 
form he  defeated  Pugh,  the  oldest  man  in  the  last  four  ses- 
sions; refused  to  enter  the  patronage  deal;  for  Benson  for 
president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws 
except  statutory  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage,  easy  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  semi-monthly  pay  day,  initiative  and 
referendum,  but  opposed  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law; 
favored  both  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation,  but  was 
against  the  street  railway  bill  and  did  not  vote  on  civil  service 
repeal. 

SAMUEL  M.  KNOPP,  Winona,  Winona  Co.— Farmer, 
member  of  the  House  in  1913;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro 
tern.;  opposed  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum;  but 
favored  tbe  semi-monthly  pay  day  bill  and  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  against  the  street  railway,  but  for  civil  service  re- 
peal; for  the  boxing  bill,  but  against  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

OLAI  A.  LENDE,  Canby,  Yellow  Medicine  and  Lyon 
Counties. — Lawyer;  member  of  the  Senate  1911-13;  opposed 
the  patronage  deal  and  was  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern; 
was  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suf- 
frage, easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and 


88 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

referendum,  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  street 
railway  bill  and  repeal  of  civil  service;  against  the  boxing 
bill,  but  for  the  Mayo  affiliation;  did  not  vote  on  the  semi- 
monthly pay  day  bill,  had  been  excused  and  was  absent. 

E.  E.  LOBECK,  Alexandria,  Douglas  and  Pope  Counties. — 
Farmer,  leader  of  the  prohibition  forces;  refused  to  enter 
the  patronage  deal  and  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.; 
for  county  option,  author  of  the  state-wide  prohibition  bill; 
for  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of 
the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum,  semi-monthly  pay 
day,  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  street  railway  bill, 
boxing  bill,  Mayo  affiliation  and  civil  service  repeal. 

P.  H.  McGARRY,  Walker,  Cass  and  Itaska  Counties. — 
Member  of  the  House  in  1909-1913,  proprietor  of  a  summer  re- 
sort at  Walker,  original  owner  of  Walker  town  site;  for 
Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  county  option,  all 
temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  Elwell  road  law  repeal,  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution,  but  favored  initiative  and 
referendum  and  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  street  railway 
bill,  civil  service  repeal,  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo 
affiliation. 

JAMES  M.  MILLETT,  Hastings,  Dakota  Co.— Lawyer, 
formerly  County  Attorney;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro 
tern.;  opposed  all  temperance  laws  and  equal  suffrage,  but 
favored  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and 
referendum  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against  the 
street  railway  bill,  and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  did  not 
vote  on  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  boxing  bill,  and  against 
Mayo  affiliation. 

-SAMUEL  B.  NELSON,  Luverne,  Rock  and  Nobles 
Counties. — Leading  merchant  of  Rock  Co.  for  many  years, 
one  of  the  Minnesota  delegation  that  nominated  Woodrow 
Wilson  for  president;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.; 
for  county  option  and  the  anti-road  house  bill,  but  against 
prohibition;  against  equal  suffrage  and  easy  amendment  of 
the  constitution,  but  for  initiative  and  referendum  and  repeal 
of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against  street  railway  bill,  but  also 
against  semi-monthly  pay  day;  against  civil  service  repeal 
and  the  boxing  bill;  voted  against  the  bill  to  prohibit  the 
Mayo  affiliation. 

LEONARD  H.  NORD,  International  Falls,  Koochiching 
and  Beltrami  Counties. — Head  of  the  Enger-Nord  Realty  Co. 
of  Minneapolis,  International  Falls  and  Fort  Francis,  On- 
tario; for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  all  temper- 
ance laws,  equal  suffrage,  repeal  of  Elwell  law  and  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution,  but  for  initiative  and  refer- 
endum; for  street  railway  Jrill,  civil  service  repeal,  and  the 
boxing  bill;  against  Mayo  affiliation;  was  absent  and  did  not 
votte  on  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  was  supposed  to  favor 
the  bill. 

D.  P.  O'NEIL,  .Thief  River  Falls,  Pennington,  Red  Lake 
and  Clearwater  Counties.— Farmer,  first  elected  to  the  legis- 
lature by  the  Farmers'  Alliance  in  1892  from  Big  Stone 
County,  member  of  the  house  1893-1899-1911-13,  refused  the 
patronage  deal;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county 
option  and  the  anti-road  house  bill,  but  against  prohibition; 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 89 

for  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day,  repeal  of  Blwell 
road  law,  easy  amendment  of  constitution,  initiative  and  refer- 
endum; against  repeal  of  civil  service,  but  for  street  rail- 
way bill  and  boxing  bill;  against  the  bill  to  prohibit  the 
Mayo  affiliation. 

CHARLES  N.  ORR,  Tenth  and  Eleventh  Wards,  St. 
Paul. — Lawyer,  had  an  excellent  record  for  two  terms  in  the 
House;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.,  for  county  option 
and  all  temperance  laws  except  statutory  prohibition;  for 
equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative 
and  referendum  but  against  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal 
of  Elwell  road  law;  against  street  railway  bill,  civil  service 
repeal  and  boxing  bill;  voted  against  the  bill  to  prohibit  the 
Mayo  affiliation. 

FRANK  L.  PALMER,  Southeast  part  of  Minneapolis. — 
Real  estate  dealer,  had  an  excellent  record  for  two  terms 
in  the  house;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.,  for  county 
option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly 
pay  day,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and 
referendum,  but  opposed  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law; 
against  street  railway  bill,  civil  service  repeal,  and  the  box- 
ing bill;  voted  against  the  bill  to  prohibit  Mayo  affiliation. 

JOHN  W.  PAULY,  Northwest  part  of  Minneapolis.— Cigar 
manufacturer,  member  of  the  Senate  in  1911-13;  for  Sullivan 
for  president  pro  tern.;  against  all  temperance  laws,  equal 
suffrage,  Elwell  road  law  repeal,  easy  amendment  of  the  con- 
stitution, but  for  initiative  and  referendum  and  semi-monthly 
pay  day;  for  street  railway  bill,  civil  service  repeal  and  boxing 
bill,  but  opposed  Mayo  affiliation. 

E.  P.  PETERSON,  Litchfield,  Meeker  Co.— Lawyer,  had 
an  excellent  record  for  four  years  in  the  Senate;  refused  to 
enter  the  patronage  combine;   for  Benson  for  president  pro 
tern.;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suf- 
frage,   easy   amendment   of   the    constitution,    initiative    and 
referendum,  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  and  semi-monthly  pay 
day;    for  the   street   railway   bill,   but  against   civil   service 
repeal;   against  the  boxing  bill,  but  also  against  the  bill  to 
prohibit  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

F.  H.  PETERSON,  Moorhead,  Clay  and  Wilkin  Counties.— 
Lawyer,  had  an  excellent  record  in  the  Senate  in  1907  and 
1909;  refused  to  enter  the  patronage  combine;  for  Benson  for 
president  pro  tern. ;  leader  of  the  county  option  forces ;  for  all 
temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the  con- 
stitution, initiative  and  referendum,  Elwell  road  law  repeal 
and  semi-monthly  pay  day  bill;   against  street  railway  bill, 
civil  service  repeal  and  the  boxing  bill;  voted  against  the  bill 
to  prohibit  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

GEO.  M.  PETERSON,  Western  part  of  Duluth. — Agent 
for  Retail  Merchants'  Association,  and  particularly  interested 
in  bills  proposed  by  the  Retail  Grocers'  Association;  for  Sul- 
livan for  president  pro  tern.;  against  county  option,  prohibi- 
tion, equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution  and 
Elwell  road  law  repeal,  but  voted  for  initiative  and  refer- 
endum and  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  street  railway  bill 
and  the  boxing  bill,  but  opposed  the  Mayo  affiliation;  did  not 
vote  on  the  anti-road  house  bill  nor  on  civil  service  repeal. 


90 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

L.  E.  POTTER,  Springfield,  Brown  and  Redwood  Counties. 
— Farmer;  refused  the  patronage  deal;  for  Benson  for  presi- 
dent pro  tern.,  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  ex- 
cept statutory  prohibition,  for  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and 
referendum  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  easy  amend- 
ment of  the  constitution,  but  against  semi-monthly  pay  day; 
against  the  street  railway  bill,  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service 
repeal;  voted  against  the  bill  to  prohibit  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

FRANK  E.  PUTNAM,  Blue  Earth,  Faribault  Co.— Lawyer; 
elected  unopposed;  serving  his  fourth  term  in  the  Senate; 
for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option  and 
all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the 
constitution,  initiative  and  referendum;  for  the  street  railway 
bill  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  boxing  bill 
but  voted  against  prohibiting  the  Mayo  affiliation;  against 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  did  not  vote  on  repeal  of  Elwell 
law;  the  very  capable  chairman  of  judiciary  committee. 

JOHN  B.  RIES,  Shakopee,  Scott  and  Carver  Counties. — 
Bottling  business;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against 
all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the 
constitution,  initiative  and  referendum  and  semi-monthly  pay 
day,  but  voted  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  street 
railway  bill,  civil  service  repeal,  boxing  bill  and  against 
Mayo  affiliation. 

A.  J.  ROCKNE,  Zumbrota,  Goodhue  Co.— Lawyer,  mem- 
ber of  the  House  1903-5-7-9,  in  the  Senate  1911-13;  for 
Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  county  option;  for 
the  anti-road  house  bill  and  constitutional  prohibition,  but 
opposed  statutory  prohibition;  against  equal  suffrage  but 
for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitu- 
tion, initiative  and  referendum  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law; 
against  the  street  railway  bill,  and  the  boxing  bill;  voted 
against  the  bill  prohibiting  the  Mayo  affiliation  and  did  not 
vote  on  tb,e  civil  service  repeal.  As  chairman  of  the  Fin- 
ance Committee  Mr.  Rockne  is  largely  responsible  for  sav- 
ing over  a  million  of  dollars  in  the  appropriations. 

EDWARD  RUSTAD,  Wheaton,  Traverse,  Big  Stone,  Grant 
and  Stevens  Counties. — Elected  unopposed;  lawyer,  member 
of  the  Senate  1911-13;  refused  patronage  deal;  for  Benson  for 
president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance 
laws  except  statutory  prohibition,  for  equal  suffrage,  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum 
and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  but  was  against  the  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  for  the  street  railway  bill,  but  against 
the  boxing  bill,  the  Mayo  affiliation  and  civil  service  repeal. 

J.  A.  RYSTROM,  North  Branch,  Chisago  and  Pine 
Counties. — Manager  North  Branch  Milling  Company;  for  Ben- 
son for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option  and  all  temper- 
ance laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitu- 
tion, initiative  and  referendum  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road 
law,  but  opposed  the  semi-monthly  pay  day;  against  street 
railway  bill,  civil  service  repeal,  boxing  bill  and  Mayo  affili- 
ation. 

OLE  O.  SAGENG,  Dalton,  Otter  Tail  Co. — Farmer;  mem- 
ber of  the  Senate  since  1906;  leader  against  patronage  com- 
bine; f&r  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for  county  option 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 91. 

and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment  of 
the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum,  semi-monthly  pay 
day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  street  rail- 
way bill,  civil  service  repeal  and  boxing  bUl;  one  of  the 
authors  of  the  bill  prohibiting  the  Mayo  affiliation,  but  with- 
drew his  support  of  the  bill  when  the  regents  passed  a  reso- 
lution to  the  effect  that  they  would  make  no  permanent 
affiliation. 

JOHN  STEFFEN,  Pipestone,  Pipestone,  Murray  and  Lin- 
coln Counties. — Farmer;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern; 
against  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy  amendment 
of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum,  but  voted  for 
the  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law; 
for  civil  service  repeal,  boxing  bill  and  Mayo  affiliation,  but 
against  the  street  railway  bill. 

GEORGE  H.  SULLIVAN,  Stillwater,  Washington  Co.— 
Lawyer;  member  of  the  Senate  since  1908;  leader  of  the 
patronage  deal,  and  successful  candidate  of  the  combine  for 
president  pro  tern.;  was  against  county  option  of  any  kind, 
and  all  other  temperance  laws;  against  equal  suffrage,  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution  and  semi-monthly  pay  day, 
but  did  vote  for  initiative  and  referendum  after  he  had  suc- 
ceeded in  spoiling  it;  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  voted 
for  the  street  railway  bill  and  civil  service  repeal,  but  op- 
posed both  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

JOHN  D.  SULLIVAN,  Benton  Co.,  City  of  St.  Cloud  and 
East  end  of  Stearns  Co. — Lawyer;  member  of  the  Senate 
1911-13;  elected  unopposed  from  a  very  wet  district;  for  Sul- 
livan for  president  pro  tern. ;  against  county  option,  yet  led 
the  fight  for  an  amendment  to  force  liquor  onto  all  parts  of 
a  coutity  if  it  voted  wet;  against  all  temperance  laws,  equal 
suffrage,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  and  semi- 
monthly pay  day,  but  voted  for  initiative  and  referendum  and 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  civil  service  repeal,  but 
against  both  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation;  did  not 
vote  on  the  street  railway  bill. 

C.  L.  SWENSON,  Albert  Lea,  Freeborn  Co.— Banker;  for 
Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against  county  option,  but 
voted  for  anti-road  house  bill;  opposed  equal  suffrage,  semi- 
monthly pay  day  and  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  but 
voted  for  initiative  and  referendum  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  for  the  street  railway  bill,  but  opposed  civil  service  re- 
peal and  both  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

GEORGE  A.  TURNHAM,  Long  Lake,  Hennepin  Co.— Road 
and  bridge  contractor;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for 
county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum, 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law,  but 
favored  the  street  railway  bill,  civil  service  repeal,  the  box- 
ing bill  and  opposed  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

PETER  VAN  HOVEN,  Fifth  and  Sixth  Wards,  St.  Paul.— 
Meat  packer;  member  of  the  Senate  1911-13;  for  several  years 
member  of  St.  Paul  board  of  public  works;  for  Sullivan  for 
president  pro  tern.;  against  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage, 


92 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum 
and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  but  was  for  the  semi-monthly 
pay  day;  for  the  street  railway  bill,  civil  service  repeal,  boxing 
bill,  and  against  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

J.  I.  VERMILYA,  Dover,  Olmstead  Co. — Farmer;  refused 
patronage  combine;  for  Benson  for  president  pro  tern.;  for 
county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  easy 
amendment  of  the  constitution,  initiative  and  referendum, 
semi-monthly  pay  day,  and  leader  of  the  forces  for  the  repeal 
of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  street  railway  bill,  civil 
service  repeal  and  the  boxing  bill;  voted  against  the  bill  to 
prohibit  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

FRED  D.  VIBERT,  Cloquet,  Carlton  and  Aitkin  Counties. 
— Editor  "Pine  Knot";  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  for 
county  option  and  the  anti-road  house  bill,  and  equal  suffrage; 
aganist  prohibition,  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  semi- 
monthly pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  the 
street  railway  bill,  but  opposed  civil  service  repeal;  for  both 
the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation;  for  initiative  and 
referendum. 

CARL  L.  WALLACE,  Eighth  Ward,  Minneapolis.— Law- 
yer and  real  estate  dealer;  member  of  the  House  1899-1901- 
1905-1909  and  Senate  1911-13;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro 
tern. ;  for  county  option,  anti-road  house  bill  and  equal  suffrage, 
but  opposed  prohibition,  semi-monthly  pay  day,  repeal  of  the 
Elwell  road  law  and  easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  but 
did  vote  for  initiative  and  referendum;  for  the  street  railway 
bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal  and  the  boxing  bill,  also 
against  the  bill  to  prohibit  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

ALBERT  L.  WARD,  Fairmount,  Martin  and  Cottonwood 
Counties. — Banker;  elected  unopposed;  for  Sullivan  for  presi- 
dent pro  tern.;  supported  county  option,  but  opposed  prohibi- 
tion and  the  anti-road  house  bill;  opposed  equal  suffrage  and 
easy  amendment  of  the  constitution;  favored  the  semi-monthly 
pay  day,  Elwell  road  law  repeal  and  initiative  and  referendum; 
for  the  street  railway  bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal; 
fought  the  bo.xing  bill  most  bitterly,  but  refused  to  support 
the  bill  to  prohibit  the  Mayo  affiliation. 

HARRY  F.  WEIS,  Le  Sueur,  Le  Sueur  Co. — Banker;  mem- 
ber of  the  Senate  since  1906;  delegate  to  national  Democratic 
convention  in  1912;  for  Sullivan  for  president  pro  tern.;  against 
all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  but  for  initiative  and 
referendum;  for  the  street  railway  bill  and  civil  service 
repeal;  against  both  the  boxing  bill  and  the  Mayo  affiliation; 
did  not  vote  on  the  repeal  of  the  Elwell  law. 

E.  J.  WESTLAKE,  Fifth  and  Sixth  Wards,  Minneapolis  — 
Insurance;  member  of  House  1913;  for  Sullivan  for  president 
pro  tern.;  against  equal  suffrage  and  all  temperance  legisla- 
tion; fathered  the  bill  to  increase  passenger  rates,  and  was 
always  lined  up  on  the  side  of  the  special  interests;  against 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  law;  against 
easy  amendment  of  the  constitution,  but  voted  for  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum;  for  the  street  railway  bill,  but  against 
civil  service  repeal;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  Mayo  affiliation. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 93 

IN   THE    HOUSE. 

Some  of  the  questi'ons  came  up  in  different  form. 

I.  County    option    and   prohibition    were   practically    the 
same  as  in  the  Senate. 

II.  The  test  on  the  road  house  bill  was  over  the  ques- 
tion whether  it  should  come  to  a  vote  at  all.     Those  who 
fought  all  day  to  prevent  this  can  hardly  be  called  friends 
of  the  bill,  even  tho  they  did  vote  for  it  on  final  passage. 

III.  The  boxing  bill  was  the  same  in  the  House,  but  the 
Mayo  affiliation  was  not  tied  up  with  it  there  as  it  was  in 
the  Senate. 

IV.  Here  the  initiative  and  referendum  bill  presented  a 
plain,  simple  issue  between  a  good  bill  or  none  at  all.     Only 
twelve  reactionaries  said  none  at  all. 

V.  Civil  service  repeal,  the  Elwell  road  law  repeal,  the 
street  railway  bill  and  the  semi-monthly  pay  day  presented 
about  the  same  problems  in  both  houses. 

VI.  The   question   of  equal   suffrage   in   the   House   was 
quite  different— not  to  submit   it  to   the   voters,   but  to   em- 
power  women   to   vote   for   presidential   electors   and   at   the 
presidential  preference  primary. 

VII.  The  speakership  was  perhaps  as  good  a  test  as  any. 

ELMER  E.  ADAMS,  Fergus  Palls,  Otter  Tail  Co. — Banker; 
for  twenty -eight  years  editor  Fergus  Falls  journal;  engaged 
also  in  flour  milling  and  jobbing  business;  member  of  the 
House  1905-7-9;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option, 
state-wide  prohibition  and  the  abolition  of  all  road  houses;  for 
woman's  suffrage  and  against  repeal  of  civil  service;  for  the 
boxing  bill  and  against  semi-monthly  pay  day;  excused  and 
absent  when  Elwell  road  law  repeal  was  voted  on;  against 
the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street  railway  bill;  a 
member  who  always  had  to  be  shown. 

A.  V.  ANDERSON,  Goodhue,  Goodhue  Co. — Farmer;  mem- 
ber of  the  House  in  1911;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county 
option,  prohibition  and  the  abolition  of  road  houses,  equal 
suffrage,  initiative  and  referendum,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  repeal 
of  civil  service;  for  the  Guilford  amendments  to  the  street 
railway  bill  and  against  the  bill. 

S.  D.  BAKER,  Chatfield,  Fillmore  Co. — Fanner;  member 
of  the  House  in  1911;  for  Flowers  for  speaker,  tho  elected 
on  a  temperance  platform;  against  county  option,  tho  his 
campaign  cards  contained  the  words  "I  am  for  county  option"; 
for  prohibition,  but  did  not  vote  on  the  road  house  bill ;  against 
equal  suffrage,  but  for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  for  repeal  of  civil  service,  but  did  not  vote 
on  the  boxing  bill;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for 
the  street  railway  bill. 

C.  H.  BALDWIN,  Beaver  Creek,  Rock  Co. — Farmer;  for 
Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition, 
but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill,  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  not  voting  on  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for 


94  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  street 
railway  bill. 

JOSEPH  BARTBN,  Belle  Plairie,  Scott  Co.— Farmer; 
elected  from  a  district  strongly  opposed  to  county  option  and 
equal  suffrage;  member  of  the  House  in  1913;  for  Flowers  for 
speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition;  did  not  vote 
on  the  road  house  bill,  but  voted  to  prevent  its  coming  to  a 
vote;  against  equal  suffrage,  but  for  semi-monthly  pay  day 
and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  civil  service  repeal,  but 
against  the  street  railway  T)ill ;  did  not  vote  on  the  boxing  bill. 

C.  M.  BENDIXEN,  Morgan,  Redwood  Co.— Farmer;  mem- 
ber of  the  House  in  1907-9-13;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  author 
of  a  bill  forbidding  railroads  from  charging  more  than  2  cents 
a  mile  for  passenger  fares;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for 
county  option  and  all  temperance  laws  except  statutory  pro- 
hibition; for  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law; 
for  civil  service  repeal,  but  against  the  boxing  bill;  for  the 
Guilford  amendments,  but  did  not  vote  on  final  passage  of 
street  railway  bill;  one  of  the  sponsors  for  initiative  and 
referendum  bill. 

WILLIAM  L.  BERNARD,  Duluth.— Wood  dealer;  for  sev- 
eral years  a  member  of  the  city  council,  where  he  stood  un- 
flinchingly for  the  rights  of  the  people  and  against  the  cor- 
porations, especially  in  the  contest  for  a  municipal  light  plant; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option,  the  abolition  of 
road  houses  and  the  prohibition  amendment;  for  equal  suffrage 
and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  did  not  vote  on  the  boxing  bill,  but  against  repeal  of 
the  civil  service;  for  the  Guilford  amendments  and  against 
the  street  railway  bill. 

FRED  BESSETTE,  Gheen,  St.  Louis  Co. — District  ranger 
in  Minnesota  Forest  Service;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against 
county  option  and  all  temperance  laws;  for  semi-monthly  pay 
day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and 
civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
for  the  street  railway  bill. 

H.  O.  BJORGE,  Lake  Park,  Becker  Co. — Lawyer  and 
farmer;  member  of  the  House  in  1905-7;  for  Gordon  for 
speaker;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws;  for 
equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  sponsor  for  initiative  and  referendum  bill;  for  the 
boxing  bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guilford 
amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

ALBIN  E.  BJORKLUND,  Payne  Avenue  District,  St.  Paul. 
— Lawyer;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all 
temperance  laws  except  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage  and 
semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  the  street  railway  bill,  but  against 
civil  service  repeal;  for  one  Guilford  amendment  to  the  street 
railway  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  the  second. 

G.  B.  BJORNSON,  Minneota,  Lyon  Co. — Editor  Minneota 
Mascot;  at  first  a  prominent  candidate  of  the  progressives  for 
speaker,  but  withdrew  in  favor  of  Gordon;  member  of  the 
House  in  1913;  for  county  option,  anti-road  house  bill,  con- 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 95 

stitutional  prohibition,  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell 
road  law,  but  against  semi-monthly  pay  day;  against  the  box- 
ing bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guilford  amend- 
ments and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

GUS  BOEHMKE,  Hollard,  Pipestone  Co.— Banker;  sup- 
ported Gordon  for  speaker  in  spite  of  tremendous  pressure; 
for  county  option  and  the  anti-road  house  bill,  but  against 
prohibition  and  equal  suffrage;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxrng  bill  and  civil 
service  repeal;  did  not  vote  on  the  street  railway  bill  nor  the 
Guilford  amendments. 

ANTON  BORGEN,  Duluth.— Retired  property  owner; 
member  of  the  House  in  1909-11-13;  for  Flowers  for  speaker; 
against  county  option  and  temperance  laws,  but  did  not  vote 
on  prohibition  nor  equal  suffrage;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day, 
but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill, 
the  street  railway  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  first 
Guilford  amendment  to  the  street  railway  bill,  but  opposed 
to  the  second. 

CHARLES  W.  BOUCK,  Royalton,  Morrison  Co. — Merchant 
and  large  land  owner;  member  of  the  House  in  1911-13;  for 
Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  all  tem- 
perance laws,  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  referendum  and 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law,  but  for  semi-monthly  pay  day; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guil- 
ford amendments  and  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

JOHN  H.  BOYD,  Crookston,  Polk  Co.— Lawyer  and  land 
dealer;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  author  of  bill  to  abolish 
mortgage  registration  tax;  against  county  option  and  pro- 
hibition, but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  for  equal  suffrage, 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the 
boxing  bill,  the  street  railway  bill  and  civil  service  repeal; 
for  the  first  Guilford  amendment  to  the  street  railway  bill, 
but  against  the  second;  tried  to  prevent  the  road  house  bill 
from  coming  to  a  vote. 

FRED  F.  BROWN,  Dayton's  Bluff  District,  St.  Paul. — Em- 
ployed by  Cook  Construction  Co.;  for  Flowers  for  speaker; 
against  county  option  and  prohibition,  but  did  not  vote  on 
the  anti-road  house  bill  nor  equal  suffrage;  for  semi-monthly 
pay.day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  box- 
ing bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amend- 
ments and  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

GEORGE  W.  BURROWS,  Breckenridge,  Wilkin  Co.— Real 
estate  and  farm  loans,  bank  director,  etc.;  member  of  the 
House  in  1913;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option, 
for  the  abolition  of  road  houses;  did  not  vote  on  prohibition; 
favored  equal  suffrage,  but  was  absent  when  the  vote  was 
taken;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  for  the 'boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for 
the  Guilford  amendments,  but  voted  for  the  street  railway  bill 
on  final  passage. 

ROBERT  CARMICHAEL,  Farmington,  Dakota  Co.— 
Farmer;  elected  on  platform  against  county  option  and  equal 
suffrage;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  prohibition,  but 


96 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

voted  for  the  anti-road  house  bill,  tho  he  tried  to  prevent 
a  vote  on  it;  against  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  referendum 
and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of  Elwtll  road  law; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  did  not  vote 
on  the  street  railway  bill. 

THEODORE  CHRISTIANSON,  Dawson,  Lac  qui  Parle  Co.— 
Editor  and  lawyer;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  author  of  bill 
to  abolish  the  oil  inspection  department;  author  of  a  bill  to 
prohibit  the  cashing  of  checks  in  saloons;  for  county  option, 
constitutional  prohibition,  anti-road  house  bill,  equal  suffrage, 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  El  well  road  law; 
against  the  boxing  bill  and  repeal  of  civil  service;  for  the 
Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

EDWARD  CONDON,  Fourth  Ward,  Minneapolis.— Law- 
yer; for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  pro- 
hibition, but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal  suf- 
frage, initiative  and  referendum  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law,  but  for  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill  and 
civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
for  the  street  railway  bill. 

LEAVITT  CORNING,  Seventh  Ward,  St.  Paul.— Head  of 
the  Corning  Advertising  Agency;  for  several  years  member 
of  the  city  council,  where  he  made  a  very  good  record  as 
champion  of  the  rights  of  the  people  as  against  the  public 
service  corporations;  for  Gordon  from  the  start;  for  county 
option,  all  temperance  laws  and  equal  suffrage,  but  against 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the 
boxing  bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guilford 
amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill;  author  or 
a  bill  to  require  any  person  attacking  a  candidate  for  office 
in  any  publication  to  sign  his  name  thereto. 

FARLEY  A.  DARE,  Walker,  Cass  Co.— Editor  Pilot;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  the  abolition  of 
road  houses,  but  against  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage  and 
semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  opposed  to  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil  service 
repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street 
railway  bill. 

LEVI  M.  DAVIS,  Osakis,  Todd  Co. — Lawyer;  for  Flowers 
for  speaker,  tho  he  refused  to  be  pledged  to  anyone  until 
the  last;  against  county  option,  because  he  favored  prohibi- 
tion; for  abolition  of  road-side  saloons;  for  equal  suffrage, 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law; 
for  civil  service  repeal,  but  against  the  boxing  bill;  for  the 
Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill; 
a  persistent  hunter  and  killer  of  "woodchucks"  and  a  "watch 
dog  of  the  treasury." 

G.  W.  DEALAND,  Worthington,  Nobles  Co. — Farmer  and 
former  school  teacher;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county 
option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of 
the  Elwell  road  law,  but  against  -semi-monthly  pay  day; 
against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  both 
Guilford  amendments,  but  for  the  street  railway  bill  on  final 
passage. 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 97 

ANDREW  O.  DEVOLD,  Minneapolis.— A  Socialist  who  in- 
sisted on  injecting  his  party  affiliation  into  every  question 
wherever  possible;  for  Flowers  for  speaker  at  fifst,  but  finally 
nominated  and  voted  for  Woodfill,  another  Socialist,  who  had 
been  pledged  to  Gordon;  against  county  option,  for  abolition 
of  road-side  saloons,  but  did  not  vote  on  prohibition;  for 
equal  suffrage,  but  was  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken; 
for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  against  the  street  railway  bill; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  did  not  vote  on 
the  Elwell  road  law  repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amendments 
to  the  street  railway  bill. 

RICHARD  DUNLEAVY,  First  Ward,  Minneapolis.— For 
twenty  years  an  employe  of  the  city  as  foreman;  for  Flowers 
for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition,  but  for 
anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of 
the  Elwell  road  law,  but  for  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the 
boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford 
amendments  and  for  the  street  railway  bill;  author  of  a  bill 
to  prohibit  the  importation  of  "gunmen." 

JAMES  DWYER,  Third  Ward,  Minneapolis.— Ice  business 
and  for  twelve  years  a  member  of  the  city  council;  member 
of  the  House  in  1913;  introduced  a  bill  to  abolish  the  civil 
service  system  of  Minneapolis  and  also  a  bill  to  do  away 
with  the  city  purchasing  department;  a  Flowers  man  from 
the  start;  against  all  temperance  laws  except  the  anti-road 
house  bill,  and  tried  hard  to  prevent  this  from  coming  to  a 
vote;  against  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road 
law,  but  for  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill  and 
civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
for  the  street  railway  bill. 

J.  H.  ERICKSON,  Clinton,  Big  Stone  Co.— Banker;  his 
first  act  was  to  repudiate  his  written  pledge  to  Gordon  and 
support  Flowers  for  speaker  (see  chapter  on  the  speakership) ; 
was  made  chairman  of  the  committee  on  banks  and  banking; 
for  county  option,  against  prohibition,  but  did  not  vote  on 
the  road  house  bill;  against  equal  suffrage,  but  for  semi- 
monthly pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the 
boxing  bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street 
railway  bill;  for  the  first  Guilford  amendment,  but  against 
the  second. 

JAMES  FERRIER,  St.  Charles,  Winona  Co. — Farmer  and 
blooded  stock  raiser;  member  of  the  House  in  1913;  for 
Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition, 
but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill,  tho  tried  to  prevent  it 
from  coming  to  a  vote;  did  not  vote  on  equal  suffrage;  against 
semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law; 
for  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil  service  repeal; 
against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street  rail- 
way bill. 

GEORGE  M.  FLYNN,  Medford,  Steele  Co.— Farmer;  sup- 
ported Gordon  for  speaker ;  for  county  option  and  other  tem- 
perance laws,  except  prohibition  by  statute;  for  equal  suffrage 
and  the  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law,  but  against  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal; 


98  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street  rail- 
way bill. 

H.  H.  FLOWERS,  Cleveland,  LeSueur  Co. — Banker  and 
land  owner;  (see  chapter-  on  the  speaker  ship  contest) ;  mem- 
ber of  the  House  in  1913;  against  county  option  and  pro- 
hibition, but  for  the  abolition  of  road-side  saloons;  did  not 
vote  on  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  nor  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal; 
for  the  Guilford  amendments,  but  for  the  street  railway  bill 
on  final  passage. 

P.  H.  PRYE,  Willmar,  Kandiyohi  Co.— Lawyer,  farmer, 
member  of  co-operative  elevator  company  and  store;  member 
of  the  House  in  1913;  supported  Gordon  for  speaker;  for 
county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi- 
monthly pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the 
boxing  bill,  but  for  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guilford 
amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

JOHN  G.  GERLICK,  Mankato,  Blue  Earth  Co.— Farmer 
and  raiser  of  blooded  hogs;  supported  Flowers  for  speaker; 
opposed  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suf- 
frage, initiative  and  referendum  and  semi-monthly  pay  day, 
but  was  for  the  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing 
bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amend- 
ments and  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

JOHN  H.  GILL,  Virginia,  St.  Louis  Co. — Steam  shovel 
engineer;  supported  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option 
and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay 
day  and  the  Elwell  road  law  repeal;  for  the  boxing  bill,  the 
street  railway  bill,  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  first 
Guilford  amendment  but  against  the  second. 

CHARLES  A.  GILMAN,  St.  Cloud,  Stearns  Co.— Lawyer; 
oldest  member  of  the  House  (83);  once  lieutenant  governor; 
for  Flowers  for  speaker;  opposed  county  option  and  all  tem- 
perance laws ;  author  of  a  resolution  to  investigate  the  gross 
earnings  system  of  taxing  corporations;  against  equal  suf- 
frage, initiative  and  referendum,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  serv- 
ice repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the 
street  railway  bill. 

THOMAS  H.  GIRLING,  Robbinsdale,  Hennepin  Co.— Print- 
ing business;  member  of  the  House  in  1903;  a  very  active 
supporter  of  Flowers  for  speaker,  chairman  of  the  rules  com- 
mittee, and  taxes  and  tax  laws;  against  county  option  and 
prohibition,  but  for  the  abolition  of  road-side  saloons,  tho 
he  tried  to  prevent  it  from  coming  to  a  vote;  against  equal 
suffrage  and  initiative  and  referendum,  but  for  semi-monthly 
pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill 
and  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments 
and  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

SAM  Y.  GORDON,  Ortonville,  Traverse  Co. — Editor  Inter- 
Lake  Tribune;  ex-lieutenant  governor;  candidate  of  the  pro- 
gressive element  for  speaker;  (see  chapter  on  the  speaker- 
ship);  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws;  author 
of  the  famous  "Seven  Sisters"  for  the  reform  of  the  state 


The    Minnesota.  Legislature    of    1915 


administration;  for  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law,  but  did  not  vote  on  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  boxing 
bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  the  Guilford 
amendments  but  for  the  street  railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

GEORGE  W.  GRANT,  Windom,  Cottonwood  Co.— For 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance 
laws,  equal  suffrage  and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  did  not 
vote  on  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill 
and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
against  the  street  railway  bill. 

THOMAS  J.  GREENE,  Ninth  Ward,  St.  Paul.— Served 
four  years  as  a  deputy  clerk  of  court;  two  years  as  deputy 
sheriff;  four  terms  in  the  legislature;  did  not  take  a  position 
on  the  speakership  until  the  day  before  the  meeting  of  the 
House  to  choose  a  speaker,  then  came  out  for  Flowers;  against 
county  option  and  prohibition;  did  not  vote  on  the  road  house 
bill;  for  equal  suffrage  and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  repeal 
of  civil  service;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  to  the  street 
railway  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  final  passage  of  the  bill. 

PAUL  GUILFORD,  Thirteenth  Ward,  Minneapolis.— Law- 
yer; active  member  of  Saturday  Lunch  Club  and  other  pro- 
gressive organizations;  a  supporter  of  Gordon  for  speaker 
from  the  start;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws, 
except  prohibition  by  statute;  for  equal  suffrage  and  semi- 
monthly pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law; 
against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  tried  to  im- 
prove the  street  railway  bill  by  amending  it,  but  was  voted 
down  on  the  one  of  most  importance;  voted  against  the  bill. 

AUGUST  HAFFTEN,  Buffalo,  Wright  Co.— For  many 
years  holder  of  county  offices;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against 
county  option  and  prohibition,  but  did  not  vote  on  the  anti- 
road  house  bill;  against  equal  suffrage  and  semi-monthly  pay 
day,  but  for  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against 
the  boxing  bill,  but  was  for  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guil- 
ford amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

H.  W.  HAISLET,  St.  James,  Watonwan  Co. — Editor;  sup- 
ported Flowers  for  speaker;  was  appointed  chairman  of  com- 
mittee on  legislative  expenses;  against  county  option  and  pro- 
hibition, but  did  not  vote  on  the  anti-road  house  bill;  against 
equal  suffrage,  but  for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on 
civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
for  the  street  railway  bill. 

H.  H.  HARRISON,  Stillwater,  Washington  Co.— Civil  En- 
gineer; for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option,  spoke 
for  prohibition,  but  was  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken  on 
the  prohibition  amendment;  against  prohibition  by  statute, 
but  for  the  abolition  of  the  road-side  saloons;  for  equal  suf- 
frage; against  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  did  not  vote  on 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  serv- 
ice repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the 
street  railway  bill. 

JOHN   M.   HARRISON,   Eighth   Ward,    Minneapolis.— In- 


100  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

surance,  with  Coklin-Zonne  Co.;  for  Flowers  for  speaker; 
chairman  of  insurance  committee;  for  county  option  and  the 
abolition  of  road-side  saloons,  but  against  prohibition ;  fathered 
the  bill  to  limit  taxation  on  the  iron  ranges  in  the  interest 
of  the  mine  owners;  for  equal  suffrage,  but  against  initiative 
and  referendum  and  El  well  road  law  repeal;  for  semi-monthly 
pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal; 
against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street  rail- 
way bill. 

ALBERT  HAUSER,  Sleeply  Eye,  Brown  Co. — Lawyer;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance 
laws  except  prohibition  by  statute;  for  equal  suffrage  and 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  but  against  semi-monthly  pay  day; 
against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guil- 
ford amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

E.  R.  HINDS,  Hubbard,  Hubbard  Co.— For  Flowers  for 
speaker;  chairman  public  doman  committee;  against  county 
option,  but  for  prohibition  and  the  anti-road  house  bill ;  did 
not  vote  on  equal  suffrage  nor  semi-monthly  pay  day;  against 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  for 
civil  service  repeal;  against  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
for  the  street  railway  bill. 

TOB'IAS  HOGENSON,  Stewartville,  Olmstead  Co.— Bank- 
er; for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  the 
anti-roadhouse  bill,  but  against  prohibition,  equal  suffrage  and 
semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  Elwell  law  repeal;  against  the 
boxing  bill  and  did  not  vote  on  civil  service  repeal;  against 
the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

HENRY  HOLMES,  Big  Lake,  Sherburne  Co. — Farmer  and 
Congregational  minister;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county 
option  and  the  anti-road  house  bill,  for  constitutional  pro- 
hibition but  against  statutory  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage, 
civil  service,  semi-monthly  pay  day,  repeal  of  Elwell  law, 
and  against  the  boxing  bill;  for  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
against  the  street  railway  bill;  author  of  the  teachers'  en- 
dowment and  retirement  fund. 

JOHN  B.  HOMPE,  Deer  Creek,  Otter  Tail  Co.— Merchant; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option,  constitutional 
prohibition  and  the  anti-road  house  bill,  but  against  statutory 
prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road 
law;  against  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but 
against  civil  service  repeal ;  for  the  Guilford  amendments  and 
against  the  street  railway  bill. 

CHARLES  E.  HULBERT,  Eden  Prairie,  Hennepin  Co.— 
Farmer;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all 
temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil 
service  repeal;  for  the  Guilford  amendments,  but  for  the  street 
railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

JAMES  H.  HYNES,  Eighth  Ward,  St.  Paul.— Undertaker; 
represents  a  workingman's  district;  for  Flowers  for  speaker; 
author  of  a  bill  to  require  semi-monthly  pay  day  by  corpora- 
tions; against  county  option  and  prohibition,  but  "for  the 
abolition  of  road-side  saloons;  for  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly 


The    Minnesota    Ueg'sit,  *<rc  -of    /frf  J  ;a  101 


pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elweil  road  l,a,w;  for  the  boxing  bill 
and  civil  service  repeal;  for*  the  Girt!fori'<  atv.<r.d?nents  but 
for  the  street  railway  bill  on  final  passage:  •  '*  ' 

EDWARD  INDREHUS,  Foley,  Benton  Co.—  Farmer;  dis- 
trict largely  Polanders;  was  pledged  against  county  option 
and  equal  suffrage;  one  of  the  Minnesota  delegates  that  nomi- 
nated Woodrow  Wilson  for  president;  for  Flowers  for  speaker; 
voted  for  constitutional  prohibition  amendment,  but  .  against 
prohibition  by  statute;  did  not  vote  on  the  anti-road  house  bill; 
had  been  excused  and  was  absent;  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law,  but  against  semi-monthly  pay  day;  against  the  boxing 
bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  Guilford  amendments 
and  against  the  street  railway  bill;  as  chairman  of  the  game 
and  fish  committee  he  secured  'some  valuable  changes  in  the 
game  and  fish  laws. 

MAGNUS  JOHNSON,  Litchfield,  Meeker  Co.—  Farmer;  ex- 
president  Minnesota  Society  of  Equity;  for  Gordon  for  speaker; 
for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws;  strongly  opposed 
to  chamber  of  commerce,  and  author  of  bills  to  correct  abuses 
in  the  handling  of  grain  ;  for  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay 
day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill, 
but  for  repeal  of  civil  service;  for  the  Guilford  amendments 
and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

J.  T.  JOHNSON,  Fergus  Falls,  Otter  Tail  Co.  —  Druggist; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  the  anti-road 
house  bill,  but  against  prohibition;  against  presidential  suf- 
frage for  women,  tho  he  voted  two  years  ago  to  submit 
the  equal  suffrage  amendment;  against  semi-monthly  pay  day, 
but  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill 
and  civil  service  repeal;  for  Guilford  amendments,  but  for 
street  railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

THOMAS  KNEELAND,  Fifth  and  Sixth  Wards,  Minne- 
apolis. —  Lawyer;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option 
and  anti-road  house  bill;  for  equal  suffrage,  tho  absent  and  not 
voting;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  El- 
well law;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal; 
for  the  street  railway  after  voting  against  one  Guilford  amend- 
ment and  not  voting  on  the  other. 

KNUTE  KNUTSON,  Benson,  Swift  Co.—  Farmer;  for  Gor- 
don for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  the  anti-road  house 
bill,  against  prohibition  by  statute,  but  did  not  vote  on  con- 
stitutional prohibition  nor  equal  suffrage;  for  semi-monthly 
pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing 
bill,  but  for  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill 
and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

P.  H.  KONZEN,  Hallock,  Kittson  Co.  —  Lawyer;  for  Gordon 
for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  anti-road  house  bill,  but 
against  prohibition  and  equal  suffrage;  did  not  vote  on  semi- 
monthly pay  day  but  was  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for 
the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway 
bill  and  against  the  Guilford  amendments. 

W.  J.  KUNTZ,  Waconia,  Carver  Co.  —  Banker;  for  Flowers 
for  speaker;  against  county  option,  all  temperance  laws  and 
equal  suffrage;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell 


102  The    Miancdc-ta    Legislature    of    1915 

road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill. and  repeal  of  civil  service;  for 
the  streev.  raiiw.ay  -  bi'l  after,  voting  against  one  Guilford 
amendment  and:  i'or  the  "other. 

JOHN  A  LARIMORE,  Seventh  and  Thirteenth  Wards, 
Minneapolis. — Lawyer;  for  Flowers  for  speaker  very  actively; 
chairman  judiciary  committee;  against  county  option  and 
statutory  prohibition,  but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  author, 
with  Davis,  of  the  constitutional  amendment  for  prohibition; 
for  equal  suffrage,  but  against  initiative  and  referendum;  for 
semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  repeal  of  civil  service;  for  the  street 
railway  bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments.  See 
p.  112. 

ADOLPH  LARSON,  Sandstone,  Pine  Co.— Merchant;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance 
laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service 
repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street 
railway  bill. 

GEORGE  P.  LATTIN,  Freeborn,  Freeborn  Co. — Farmer; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance 
laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  re- 
peal; for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street 
railway  bill. 

TVER  J.  LEE,  Glenwood,  Pope  Co. — Farmer,  superinten- 
dent of  county  schools;  member  of  the  House  1909-11;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option,  all  temperance  laws, 
equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the 
Guilford  amendments  to  the  street  railway  bill,  and  then 
against  the  bill. 

A.  L.  LENNON,  First  and  Third  Wards,  Minneapolis; 
both  sides  of  the  river  from  steel  arch  bridge  northward. — 
For  Flowers  for  speaker,  and  was  made  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee on  cities;  against  county  option  and  prohibition,  but 
did  not  vote  on  the  anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal  suf- 
frage; author  of  public  defender  bill;  for  labor  legislation; 
opposed  to  civil  service;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  Guilford  amendments 
and  for  street  railway  bill. 

HUGH  LEONARD,  Millville,  Wabasha  Co. — Farmer; 
elected  on  anti-county  option  platform;  for  Flowers  for  speak- 
er; against  county  option  and  prohibition;  did  not  vote  on 
anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal  suffrage  and  semi-monthly 
pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  Guilford 
amendments  and  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

L.  A.  LYDIARD,  Eighth  Ward,  Minneapolis. — Former  city 
clerk,  now  engaged  in  land  business;  has  been  in  the  House 
for  several  sessions;  a  consistent,  persistent  active  leader  of 
the  reactionary  forces;  chairman  of  the  Hennepin  delegation; 
active  for  Flowers  from  the  start,  and  was  made  chairman 
of  the  grain  and  warehouse  committee,  where  he  strongly 
opposed  all  bills  aimed  at  the  methods  of  the  chamber  of 
commerce;  against  county  option,  for  prohibition  and  the 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 103 

anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and 
referendum  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  but  for  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal; 
against  the  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street  rail- 
way bill. 

T.  J.  M'GRATH,  Sixth  and  Eighth  Wards,  St.  Paul.— 
Lawyer;  prominent  labor  advocate;  for  Flowers  for  speaker; 
chairman  of  labor  committee;  against  county  option  and  pro- 
hibition, but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill  on  final  passage, 
tho  he  tried  to  prevent  it  from  coming  to  a  vote;  a  very 
able  advocate  of  all  labor  legislation,  including  semi-monthly 
pay  bill,  improvement  of  compensation  act,  etc. ;  against  equal 
suffrage,  civil  service  and  repeal  of  Elwell  law;  for  the  boxing 
bill;  but  against  the  street  railway  bill  after  voting  for  both 
Guilford  amendments. 

WALTER  H.  M'LAUGHLIN,  Faribault,  Rice  Co.— Farmer; 
for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibi- 
tion, but  for  anti-road  house  bill  on  final  passage,  tho  he 
tried  to  prevent  it  from  coming  to  a  vote;  against  equal  suf- 
frage; for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell 
road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  against 
the  street  railway  bill  after  voting  against  both  Guilford 
amendments. 

J.  E.  MADIGAN,  Maple  Lake,  Wright  Co.— Lawyer; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker ;  for  county  option  and  anti-road  house 
bill,  but  against  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly 
pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing 
bill,  but  for  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  the  Guilford  amend- 
ments to  the  street  railway  bill,  but  voted  for  the  bill  on 
final  passage;  always  had  to  know  just  what  he  was 
voting  on. 

CARL  G.  MALMBERG,  Forest  Lake,  Washington  Co.— 
Banker;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and 
prohibition,  but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal  suf- 
frage; for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  for  repeal  of  civil  service,  but  did  not  vote  on  the 
boxing  bill;  for  the  street  railway  bill  after  voting  against 
both  Guilford  amendments. 

PAUL  MARSCHALK,  Warroad,  Roseau  Co.— Engaged 
in  Commercial  fishing  on  Lake  of  the  Woods;  for  Gordon  for 
speaker;  for  county  option  and  the  anti-road  house  bill,  against 
prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage,  but  was  absent  and  did  not 
vote;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  did  not  vote  on  repeal 
of  Elwell  road  law ;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  re- 
peal; for  street  railway  bill  after  voting  against  both  Guil- 
ford amendments. 

PAUL  J.  MARWIN,  Ninth  Ward,  Minneapolis.— Lawyer; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance 
laws,  equal  suffrage,  civil  service  and  semi-montthly  pay  day; 
but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  did  not  vote  on  the 
boxing  bill;  for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against 
street  railway  bill. 

H.  J.  MINER,  International  Falls,  Koochiching  Co.— 
Printing  business,  had  been  a  member  of  both  House  and 


104  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Senate  in  N.  Dakota;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county 
option  and  statutory  prohibition,  but  did  not  vote  on  consti- 
tutional amendment  for  prohibition  and  the  anti-road  house 
bill;  did  not  vote  on  equal  suffrage-;  against  semi-monthly 
pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill 
but  did  not  vote  on  repeal  of  civil  service;  for  street  rail- 
way bill  and  against  one  of  the  Guilford  amendments  but  did 
not  vote  on  the  other. 

FRANK  E.  MINNETTE,  Sauk  Center,  Stearns  Co.— 
Farming  and  general  business,  represents  a  very  conserva- 
tive constituency,  largely  Germans;  toward  the  last  of  the 
contest  decided  to  support  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county 
option,  all  temperance  laws  and  equal  suffrage;  author  of  the 
telephone  bill  which  became  a  law;  for  semi-monthly  pay 
day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but 
did  not  vote  on  civil  service  repeal;  against  both  Guilford 
amendments  and  for  the  street  railway  bill. 

GEO.  H.  MOELLER,  Fourth  Ward,  St.  Paul. — With  the 
Corning  Advertising  Agency;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against 
county  option  and  prohibition,  but  for  the  anti-road  house 
bill,  tho  he  tried  to  prevent  it  from  coming  to  a  vote; 
against  equal  suffrage,  tho  he  voted  for  it  two  years  be- 
fore, champion  of  the  boxing  bill  and  against  civil  service; 
for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  did 
not  vote  on  the  street  railway  bill  nor  either  Guilford  amend- 
ment. 

T.  T.  MORKEN,  Crookston,  Polk  Co. — Lawyer  and  Judge 
of  Probate;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and 
all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  repeal  of  Elwell  law  and 
semi-monthly  pay  day;  against  the  boxing  bill  but  did  not 
vote  on  civil  service  repeal;  "for  both  Guilford  amendments 
to  the  street  railway  bill,  but  for  the  bill  on  final  passage. 

ALFRED  W.  MUELLER,  New  Ulm,  Brown  Co.— Lawyer, 
defeated  Albert  Pfaender  for  the  seat;  for  Flowers  for 
speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition,  but  for  the 
anti-road  house  bill;  did  not  vote  on  equal  suffrage;  for  semi- 
monthly pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  box- 
ing bill  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  did  not  vote  on  the 
street  railway  bill  nor  on  either  Guilford  amendment. 

CHAS.  T.  MURPHY,  Aurora,  St.  Louis  Co.— Lawyer;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition, 
but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill,  for  equal  suffrage  and  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for 
the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway 
bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

E.  N.  NELSON,  West  end  of  Duluth. — Sash  and  door  man- 
ufacturer; for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option 
and  prohibition,  but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal 
suffrage,  for  semi-monthly  pay  day  but  against  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil 
service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway  and  against  both  Guil- 
ford amendments. 

CHAS.  F.  NEITZEL,  Bird  Island,  Renvelle  Co.— Merchant ; 
for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibi- 
tion, but  for  anti-road  house  bill,  tho  he  tried  to  prevent 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915  105 

it  from  coming  to  a  vote;  against  equal  suffrage,  and  semi- 
monthly pay  day,  but  for  the  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  street  railway 
bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

FRANK  E.  NIMOCKS,  Fourth  Ward,  Minneapolis.— 
Collection  business;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county 
option  and  prohibition,  but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill,  tho 
he  tried  to  prevent  it  from  coming  to  a  vote;  against  equal 
suffrage  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  but  for  the  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal; 
for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amend- 
ments; author  of  the  bill  against  habit-forming  drugs. 

ELIAS  NORDGREN,  Sunrise,  Chisago  Co. — For  Gordon 
for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  all  temperance  laws,  for 
equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell 
road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil 
service  repeal;  against  the  street  railway  bill  and  for  both 
Guilford  amendments. 

WILLIAM  J.  NORTH,  East  end  Duluth  —  For  Flowers  for 
speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition,  but  for  the 
anti-road  house  bill,  tho  he  tried  to  prevent  it  from  com- 
ing to  a  vote;  against  equal  suffrage  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell 
road  law,  but  did  not  vote  on  the  semi-montthly  pay  day; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street 
railway  bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

W.  I.  NORTON,  Second  Ward,  Minneapolis.— University 
district.  Lawyer  and  Attorney  for  Anti-Saloon  League;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option,  prohibition,  anti-road 
house  bill,  equal  suffrage,  civil  service  and  semi-monthly  pay 
day:  against  the  boxing  bill  and  the  street  railway  bill  and 
for  both  Guilford  amendments;  against  repeal  of  Elwell  law. 

B.  G.  NOVAK,  Eighth  Ward,  St.  Paul.— Retail  Grocer; 
for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibi- 
tion but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  did  not  vote  on  equal  suf- 
frage, author  of  a  bill  to  open  school  houses  for  all  kinds  of 
public  meetings;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the 
Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal; 
for  both  the  Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street 
railway  bill. 

ANDREW  OLIEN,  Clarkfield,  Yellow  Medicine  Co.— 
Farmer  and  Merchant;  was  elected  unopposed;  for  Gordon 
for  speaker,  for  county  option,  prohibition  and  anti-road  house 
.bill;  for  equal  suffrage,  repeal  of  Elwell  law  and  semi-monthly 
pay  day;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal; 
for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street  railway 
bill. 

JOHN  W.  PAPKE,  Waseca,  Waseca  Co. — Elected  unop- 
posed; farmer;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  temperance 
laws,  against  equal  suffrage,  tho  he  voted  for  it  two  years  ago, 
against  initiative  and  referendum,  for  semi-monthly  pay  day 
and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  repeal 
of  civil  service;  for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against  both 
Guilford  amendments. 

RALPH  J.  PARKER,   Spring  Valley,  Fillmore  Co.— Law- 


106 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

yer;  for  Gordon  for  speaker,  for  county  option,  constitutional 
prohibition  and  anti-road  house  bill;  for  equal  suffrage  and 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  but  against  semi-monthly  pay 
day,  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil  service 
repeal;  for  the  first  Guilford  amendment  but  against  the 
second  and  for  the  street  railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

L.  G.  PENDERGAST,  Bemidji,  Beltrami  Co.— Real  estate 
business;  his  one  supreme  object  was  to  secure  a  State 
Normal  School  for  Bemidji  arid  partially  succeeded;  for 
Flowers  for  speaker;  against  all  temperance  laws;  failed  to 
vote  on  equal  suffrage,  though  known  to  be  in  favor  of  it; 
for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law ;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal ;  not  voting  on 
street  railway  bill. 

ANTON  PETERSON,  Mora,  Kanabec  Co.— For  twelve 
years  County  Auditor;  for  Gordon  for  Speaker;  for  county 
option  and  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly 
pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  box- 
ing bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amend- 
ments and  against  street  railway  bill. 

A.  M.  PETERSON,  Coleraine,  Itasca  Co.— Lawyer;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option  and  the  anti-road  house 
bill;  but  against  prohibition;  against  presidential  suffrage 
for  women,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  against  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil  service 
repeal;  against  both  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street 
railway  bill. 

OLE  A.  PIKOP,  Elbow  Lake,  Grant  Co.— Farmer;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option,  constitutional  prohibi- 
tion and  anti-road  house  bill;  but  did  not  vote  on  presidential 
suffrage;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  for  civil  service  repeal,  but  against  the  box- 
ing bill;  for  street  railway  and  split  on  the  Guilford  amend- 
ments. 

ERNEST  C.  PLESS,  Gibbon,  Sibley  Co.— Miller;  for 
Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and  the  anti-road- 
house  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  prohibition;  did  not  vote  on 
presidential  suffrage  for  women;  author  of  a  bill  to  restore 
the  death  penalty  in  certain  cases;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day 
and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil 
service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against  both 
Guilford  amendments. 

ALBERT  F.  PRATT,  Anoka,  Anoka  and  Isanti  Counties.— 
Lawyer;  elected  unopposed;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for 
county  option,  anti-road  house  bill,  constitutional  prohibition 
and  equal  suffrage;  voted  against  statutory  prohibition;  for 
repeal  of  Elwell  road  law,  but  against  semi-monthly  pay  day; 
against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  Guil- 
ford amendments  but  for  the  street  railway  bill  on  final  pas- 
sage. A  member  who  had  to  be  shown. 

H.  A.  PUTNAM,  Battle  Lake,  Ottertail  Co.— Farmer,  mem- 
ber of  the  House  in  1909-11-13;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for 
county  option  and  all  temperance  laws;  equal  suffrage,  semi- 
monthly pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 107 

boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amend- 
ments but  for  the  street  railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

E.  R.  RIBENACK,  Central  District,  Duluth.— Hotel  keeper; 
for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option,  prohibition 
and  equal  suffrage,  but  favored  anti-road  hquse  bill  on  final 
passage,  tho  he  tried  to  prevent  it  from  coming  to  a  vote; 
for  semi-monthly  pay  day  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  for  civil  service  repeal,  but  not  voting  on  the  boxing 
bill;  against  both  Guilford  amendments  and  for  the  street 
railway  bill. 

GEO  W.  RODENBERG,  Dayton's  Bluff,  St.  Paul.— Insur- 
ance business;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  op- 
tion, prohibition,  equal  suffrage  and  initiative  and  referendum, 
but  voted  for  the  anti-road  house  bill  tho  he  tried  to 
prevent  it  from  coming  to  a  vote;  author  of  bills  to  require 
all  patent  medicines  to  show  contents  on  the  label;  for- semi- 
monthly pay  day;  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  street  railway 
bill;  against. one  Guilford  amendment,  but  did  not  votte  on  the 
other. 

JOHN  B.  SANBORN,  Eleventh  Ward,  St.  Paul.— Lawyer; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county  option,  anti-road  house 
bill  and  equal  suffrage;  against  prohibition  and  semi-monthly 
pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing 
bill,  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway 
bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

CHAS.  L.  SAWYER,  Fifth  and  Sixth  Wards,  Minneapolis. 
— Real  estate;  was  pledged  to  Gordon  for  speaker,  but  at  the 
last  moment  voted  for  Flowers;  (see  chapter  on  County  Op- 
tion and  the  Speakership)  was  chairman  of  the  committee 
on  public  accounts  and  expenditures;  promised  to  vote  for 
county  option  but  voted  against  it;  voted  for  constitutional 
prohibition,  the  anti-road  house  bill,  equal  suffrage  and  semi- 
monthly pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  against  civil  service 
repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill,  but  split  on  the  Guilford 
amendments;  against  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law. 

SPENCER  J.  SEARLS,  Carleton  Co. — Lawyer;  for  Gordon 
for  speaker  (see  chapter  on  Speakership) ;  for  county  option, 
all  temperance  laws  and  equal  suffrage;  but  against  semi- 
monthly pay  day  and  did  not  vote  on  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  introduced  a  bill  to  tax  improved  property  at  a  lower 
rate  than  vacant  and  unimproved;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but 
against  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amendments, 
but  for  street  railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

FRED  SEEBACH,  Red  Wing,  Goodhue  Co. — Held  various 
public  offices  for  many  years;  member  of  the  House  in  1913; 
for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  all  temperance  laws;  for 
presidential  suffrage  for  women,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but 
for  civil  service  repeal;  against  both  Guilford  amendments 
and  against  the  street  railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

JOHN  SCHROOTEN,  Fairmont,  Martin  Co. — County  Trea- 
surer for  many  years;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  all 
temperance  laws,  against  equal  suffrage,  initiative  and  refer- 
endum and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of  Elwell 


108  The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  for  civil  service  repeal; 
for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against  the  Guilford  amend- 
ments. 

SAMUEL  C.  SCOTT,  Hibbing,  St.  Louis  Co.— Lawyer; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker,  tho  he  voted  for  Flowers  on 
the  first  ballot;  (see  chapter  on  the  Speakership)  against  all 
temperance  laws;  for  equal  suffrage  and  semi-monthly  pay 
day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing 
bill,  but  not  voting  on  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  rail- 
way bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

I.  I.  SLITER,  Houston,  Houston  Co. — Farmer;  for 
Flowers  for  Speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition, 
but  for  the  anti-road  house  bill;  for  initiative  and  referendum, 
but  did  not  vote  on  suffrage  for  women;  for  the  semi-monthly 
pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  both  Guilford 
amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill;  against  the 
boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil  service  repeal. 

HENRY  SMITH,  Lake  Benton,  Lincoln  Co. — Farmer;  for 
Flowers  for  Speaker;  against  all  temperance  -laws  except 
anti-road  house  bill;  against  equal  suffrage  and  semi-monthly 
pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  box- 
ing bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil  service  repeal;  for  the 
street  railway  bill  but  split  his  vote  on  the  Guilford  amend- 
ment. 

GILBERT  SORFLATEN,  Austin,  Mower  Co. — Farm  lands 
and  investments;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  all  temper- 
ance laws  except  statutory  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage, 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the 
boxing  bill  but  against  civil  service  repeal;  against  the  street 
railway  bill  and  for  both  Guilford  amendments. 

CLAUDE  E.  -SOUTHWICK,  Wells,  Faribault  Co.— Lawyer, 
elected  unopposed;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  all  temper- 
ance laws  except  statutory  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage, 
but  against  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell 
road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil 
service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against  both 
Guilford  amendments. 

L.  C.  SPOONER,  Morris,  Stevens  Co. — Lawyer  and  large 
land  owner;  member  of  the  House  in  1907-09-11-13;  (see 
chapter  on  speakership  and  county  option) ;  for  Flowers  for 
speaker;  voted  for  county  option  and  constitutional  prohibi- 
tion, against  statutory  prohibition,  was  excused  and  absent 
the  day  the  anti-road  house  bill  was  passed;  against  presi- 
dential suffrage  for  women  and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for 
repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not 
vote  on  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill,  but 
for  one  Guilford  amendment  and  did  not  vote  on  the  other.. 

HENRY  STEEN,  Winona,  Winona  Co.— Salesman,  repre- 
sents a  strong  anti-county  option  district;  member  of  the 
House  in  1913;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  all  temper- 
ance laws  and  equal  suffrage;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but 
against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and 
civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against 
botth  Guilford  amendments. 

OSCAR  C.  STENVICK,  Bagley,  Clearwater  Co. — Lawyer; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  (see  chapter  on  speakership);  for 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915  109 

all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage,  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law  and  semi-monthly  pay  day;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil 
service  repeal;  against  street  railway  bill  and  both  Guilford 
amendments. 

CHARLES  L.  STEVENS,  Warren,  Marshall  Co.— Lawyer 
and  Editor;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  all  temperance  laws, 
equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  for  civil  service  repeal; 
for  both  Guilford  amendments  but  for  the  street  railway  bill 
on  final  passage. 

HENRY  STOETZEL,  Freeport,  R.  F.  D,.  Stearns  Co.— 
Farmer  and  Teacher,  represents  a  strong  anti-county  option 
district;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option  and 
prohibition;  was  excused  and  absent  on  the  day  the  anti- 
road  house  bill  was  passed;  against  equal  suffrage,  but  for 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell  road  law; 
for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  Guilford 
amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

GEO.  C.  -SUDHEIMER,  Midway.  District  North  of  Uni- 
versity Ave.,  St.  Paul. — Lawyer;  for  Flowers  for  speaker; 
against  county  option  and  statutory  prohibition;  did  not  vote 
on  constitutional  prohibition  nor  the  anti-road  house  bill; 
against  equal  suffrage;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  did 
not  vote  on  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill 
and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against 
both  Guilford  amendments. 

JOHN  SWANSON,  Eleventh  and  Twelfth  Wards,  Min- 
neapolis.— Grocer;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  all  temperance 
laws,  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of 
the  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill  but  for  civil 
service  repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against  the 
street  railway  bill. 

OSCAR  A.  SWENSON,  Nicollet,  R.  2,  Nicollet  Co.— 
Farmer;  for  Flower  for  speaker;  against  county  option,  statu- 
tory prohibition  and  presidential  suffrage  for  women;  (see 
chapter  on  county  option)  voted  for  constitutional  prohibi- 
tion and  the  anti-road  house  bill;  against  semi-monthly  pay 
but  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill, 
but  for  civil  service  repeal;  for  one  and  against  the  other 
of  the  Guilford  amendments  to  the  street  railway  bill  and 
for  the  bill  on  final  passage. 

EDW.  R.  SYVERSON,  Ironton,  Crow  Wing  Co.— Real 
Estate  and  Insurance;  for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county 
option,  prohibition  and  equal  suffrage;  had  been  excused  and 
was  not  present  when  the  anti-road  house  bill  passed;  for 
semi-monthly  pay  day  but  did  not  vote  on  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill,  civil  service  repeal  and  street 
railway  bill;  favored  one  of  the  Guilford  amendments,  but 
did  not  vote  on  the  other. 

A.  F.  TEIGEN,  Montevideo,  Chippewa  Co. — Farmer, 
member  of  co-operative  exchange;  for  Gordon  for  speaker; 
for  all  temperance  laws  except  statutory  prohibition;  for 
equal  suffrage;  did  not  vote  on  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but 
was  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and 
civil  service  repeal;  for  botth  Guilford  amendments  and 
against  the  street  railway  bill. 


110 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

LARS  O.  TEIGEN,  Jackson,  Jackson  Co. — Farmer;  for 
Gordon  for  speaker;  for  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage, 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law.;  against 
the  boxing  bill,  but  did  not  vote  on  civil  service  repeal;  for 
both  Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street  railway  bill. 

H.  O.  THOMPSON,  Amboy,  Blue  Earth  Co. — Farmer; 
for  Gordon  for  speaker;  (see  chapter  on  the  speakership) ; 
for  all  temperance  laws,  equal  suffrage  and  semi-monthly  pay 
day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  box- 
ing bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amend- 
ments and  against  street  railway  bill. 

A.  L.  THOMPSON,  Mahnomen,  Mahnomen  Co. — Lawyer 
and  Banker;  on  first  ballot  for  Gordon,  but  on  the  second 
ballot  voted  for  Flowers;  for  county  option,  against  prohibi- 
tion and  did  not  vote  on  the  anti-road  house  bill;  for  equal 
suffrage;  against  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of 
Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service 
repeal;  for  the  street  railway  bill  and  against  both  Guilford 
amendments. 

J.  M.  THORNTON,  Fifth  Ward,  .St.  Paul.— Contractor; 
refused  to  be  pledged  on  speakership,  but  came  out  for 
Flowers  on  the  day  before  the  election  of  speaker;  against 
county  option  and  prohibition,  but  did  not  vote  on  anti-road 
house  bill;  against  equal  suffrage  tho  for  it  two  years 
ago;  for  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell 
road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal,  for 
the  street  railway  bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

THOMAS  TOLLEFSON,  West  Concord,  Dodge  Co.— 
Farmer;  supported  Gordon  in  spite  of  very  strong  pressure 
to  secure  his  vote  for  Flowers;  for  all  temperance  laws  and 
equal  suffrage;  against  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for  repeal 
of  Elwell  road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service 
repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amendments  to  the  street  railway 
bill,  but  voted  for  the  bill  on  final  passage. 

LOUIS  W.  VASALY,  Little  Falls,  Morrison  Co.— Lawyer; 
represents  a  county  largely  Poles,  Bohemians,  .and  Germans, 
but  was  re-elected  on  a  platform  supporting  equal  suffrage 
and  county  option;  member  of  the  House  in  1913;  for  Gordon 
for  speaker;  voted  for  county  option  and  other  temperance 
laws,  except  statutory  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage  and 
semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  against  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  for  the  boxing  bill  but  opposed  civil  service  repeal; 
for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against  street  railway  bill. 

C.  H.  WARNER,  Aitkin,  Aitkin  Co.— Banker,  Lawyer, 
Real  estate;  member  of  the  House  in  1911-13;  for  Gordon 
for  Speaker;  for  county  option  and  the  anti-road  house  bill, 
but  against  prohibition;  for  equal  suffrage,  did  not  vote  on 
semi-monthly  pay  day  and  was  against  repeal  of  the  Elwell 
law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the 
street  railway  bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

KNUD  WEFALD,  Hawley,  Clay  Co.— Lumber  dealer; 
member  of  House  in  1913;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for  county 
option,  constitutional  prohibition,  the  anti-road  house  bill,  and 
equal  suffrage;  against  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for  repeal 
of  Elwell  road  law;  did  not  vote  on  the  boxing  bill  nor  civil 


The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915  111 

service  repeal;  for  both  Guilford  amendments  but  for  the 
street  railway  bill  on  final  passage. 

A.  C.  WELCH,  Glencoe,  McLeod  Co. — Farmer  and  mem- 
ber of  co-operative  society  from  a  district  strongly  opposed 
to  equal  suffrage  and  temperance  laws;  for  Flowers  for 
speaker;  against  county  option  and  prohibition,  but  for  the 
anti-road  house  bill  tho  he  tried  to  prevent  it  from  com- 
ing to  a  vote;  against  equal  suffrage,  but  for  semi-monthly 
pay  day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill 
and  civil  service  repeal;  did  not  vote  on  street  railway  bill. 

BERT  WELD,  Slayton,  Murray  Co. — Banker  and  real 
estate;  elected  unopposed;  member  of  the  House  in  1913; 
for  Gordon  from  the  start;  for  all  temperance  laws,  equal 
suffrage,  and  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  opposed  repeal  of 
Elwell  law;  against  civil  service  repeal  but  did  not  vote  on 
the  boxing  bill;  for  the  street  railway  bill,  but  split  his 
vote  on  the  Guilford  amendments. 

CHAS.  S.  WILKINS,  Wadena,  Wadena  Co.— Hotel  keeper; 
for  Flowers  for  speaker;  against  county  option,  for  prohibi- 
tion, did  not  vote  on  anti-road  house  bill  nor  equal  suffrage; 
against  semi-monthly  pay  day,  but  for  repeal  of  Elwell  road 
law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and  civil  service  repeal;  for  the 
street  railway  bill  and  against  both  Guilford  amendments. 

J.  W.  WILSON,  Third  and  Tenth  Wards,  Minneapolis.— 
Member  of  the'  House  1913;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  for 
county  option  and  all  temperance  laws  except  statutory  pro- 
hibition; for  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  re- 
peal of  Elwell  road  law;  for  civil  service  repeal,  but  against 
the  boxing  bill;  for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against 
the  street  railway  bill. 

CARL  WOLD,  Alexandria,  Douglas  Co.— Editor  Park 
Region  Echo;  for  Gordon  for  speaker;  an  uncompromising 
opponent  of  the  brewery  interests;  for  all  temperance  laws, 
equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay  day  and  repeal  of  the  Elwell 
road  law;  against  the  boxing  bill,  but  for  civil  service  repeal; 
for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against  the  street  rail- 
way bill. 

JAS.  W.  WOODFILL,  Two  Harbors,  Lake  Co.— A  party 
Socialist;  was  at  first  pledged  for  Gordon  for  speaker,  but 
obeyed  the  command  of  the  Socialist  committee,  to  vote 
for  none  but  a  Socialist;  voted  for  county  option  and  the 
anti-road  house  bill,  but  was  against  statutory  prohibition,  and 
was  excused  for  the  day  and  absent  the  day  that  constitutional 
prohibition  came  up;  for  equal  suffrage,  semi-monthly  pay 
day  and  repeal  of  Elwell  road  law;  for  the  boxing  bill  and 
civil  service  repeal ;  for  both  Guilford  amendments  and  against 
the  street  railway  bill. 


112 The    Minnesota    Legislature    of    1915 

Larimore's    Record. 

When  Mr.  Larimore  was  seeking  votes  he  wrote  two 
letters  to  the  Saturday  Lunch  Club  and  one  to  Mr.  Chad- 
bourne,  president  of  the  United  Church  Clubs  of  Minneapolis. 
In  these  letters  he  outlined  his  position  on  important  ques- 
tions. 

I  have  quoted  from  these  letters  and  set  over  against 
the  quotians  his  votes  on  the  same  subjects. 

His   Promises.  His  Votes. 

The   Speakership. 

"I  am  a  progressive  in  the  He   worked   and   voted   for 

proper    sense    of    that    word,  Flowers  for  speaker, 

and  I  certainly  shall  act  on  He   had    before    this    voted 

all  occasions,  as  well  in  the  for  Lydiard  for  chairman  of 

organization     of    the     House  the  Hennepin  delegation, 

and  in  the  choice  of  a  speak-  Were     these     men     ''truly 

er,   with   men  who  are   truly  progressive"? 
progressive." 

Civil    Service. 

"I     always     have     believed  He    voted    for    the    Dwyer 

and  still  believe  in  civil  serv-      bill  to  abolish  the  civil  serv- 
ice." ice   in   Minneapolis. 

Initiative  and    Referendum. 

"The  general  principles  of  He  was  one  of  only  twelve 
both  the  initiative  and  refer-  in  the  House  to  vote  against 
endum  I  now  believe  in  and  the  initiative  and  referendum 
always  have."  bill  and  made  a  most  vigor- 

ous speech  against  it. 

County    Option. 

"My  attitude  toward  county          He      worked      and      voted 
option  and  any  other  legisla-      against  the  county  option  bill, 
tion  or  policy  intended  to  re- 
duce   the    evils    of    intemper- 
ance is  favorable." 

Brewery    Domination. 

"My  attitude  toward  saloon  He  voted  for  Lydiard  for 
and  brewery  domination  in  chairman  of  the  Hennepin 
the  politics  of  the  state  is  delegation,  a  man  who  was 
one  of  absolute  hostility."  supported  by  every  "wet" 

man  on  the  delegation. 

He  voted  for  Flowers  for 
speaker,  who  was  openly  sup- 
ported by  all  the  liquor  in- 
terests of  the  state. 

He  voted  against  county 
option,  and  prohibition  by 
statute,  but  fathered  a  con- 
stitutional amendment  for 
state-wide  prohibition. 

Mr.  Larimore  was  made  chairman  of  the  judiciary  com- 
mittee. 


The  Minnesota  Legislature 
of  1913 

Out  of  Print— Only  a  Few  Copies  Left 

While  They  Last 
Cloth,  $1.00;  Paper,  50c 

ADDRESS: 

C.  J.  BUELL,  1528  Laurel  Ave.,  St.  Paul,  Minn. 

Heywood  Mfg.  Co. 

General  Manufacturers  of 

All  Kinds  of  Paper  Boxes, 

Envelopes  and  Printed 

Matter 

420-428  No.  Third  Street       Minneapolis,  Minn. 

Mr.  Buell's  book  advocates  clean  politics. 

We  approve  of  clean  politics, 

but  our  line  is 

"Cleaning  everything  but 
reputations" 

We  handle  out-of-town  cleaning,  dyeing  and  repair- 
ing orders  promptly.     This  is  the  largest  ex" 
elusive  dry  cleaning  and  dyeing 
works  west  of  Chicago 

WE  KNOW  HOW 
that's  the  reason 


Minnehaha  Dry  Cleaning  Co. 

792  Grand  Ave.    505  Wabasha    828  Payne  Ave. 

ST.  PAUL,  MINN. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


year, 

LD  21-100m-7,'33          |:      «1  . 


five  years,  $L50. 


Ramaley  Printing:  Co,. 


St.  Paul,  Minn. 


GaylordBros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
PAT.  JAN.  21,  1908 


5735 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


